bet

A man divorces his wife and then stays with her over night in an inn: Bet Shammai says: she does not require from him a second get, But Beth Hillel say she does require a second get from him. When is this so? When she was divorced after marriage. And [Beth Hillel] agrees that if she is divorced after betrothal, she does not require a second get from him, because he would not [yet] take liberties with her. If a man marries a [divorced] woman through a “bald” get, she must leave both husbands and all the above-mentioned consequences apply to her.

Bet Shammai says: a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct, as it says, “Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.” Bet Hillel says [that he may divorce her] even if she has merely burnt his dish, since it says, “Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.” Rabbi Akiva says, [he may divorce her] even if he finds another woman more beautiful than she is, as it says, “it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes”.

Bet Shammai says: a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct, as it says, “Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.” Bet Hillel says [that he may divorce her] even if she has merely burnt his dish, since it says, “Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.” Rabbi Akiva says, [he may divorce her] even if he finds another woman more beautiful than she is, as it says, “it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes”.

A woman is acquired in three ways and acquires herself in two: She is acquired by money, by document, or by intercourse. “By money”: Bet Shammai says: a denar or the equivalent of a denar; Bet Hillel says: a perutah or the equivalent of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? An eighth of an Italian issar. And she acquires herself by divorce or by her husband's death. A yevamah is acquired by intercourse. And she acquires herself by halitzah or by the yavam’s death.

A woman is acquired in three ways and acquires herself in two: She is acquired by money, by document, or by intercourse. “By money”: Bet Shammai says: a denar or the equivalent of a denar; Bet Hillel says: a perutah or the equivalent of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? An eighth of an Italian issar. And she acquires herself by divorce or by her husband's death. A yevamah is acquired by intercourse. And she acquires herself by halitzah or by the yavam’s death.

[If he says to her “Be betrothed to me] on condition that I own a bet kor of land”, she is betrothed, providing he does own it. “On condition that I own it in such and such a place”, if he owns it there she is betrothed, but if not she is not betrothed. “On condition that I show you a bet kor of land,” she is betrothed, providing that he does show it to her. But if he shows it to her in a plain, she is not betrothed.

[If he says to her “Be betrothed to me] on condition that I own a bet kor of land”, she is betrothed, providing he does own it. “On condition that I own it in such and such a place”, if he owns it there she is betrothed, but if not she is not betrothed. “On condition that I show you a bet kor of land,” she is betrothed, providing that he does show it to her. But if he shows it to her in a plain, she is not betrothed.

If a man makes personal use of a deposit: Bet Shammai holds that he is at a disadvantage whether the value rises or falls. Bet Hillel says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which he put it to use. Rabbi Akiva says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which it is claimed. One who expresses his intention to use a deposit [for personal use]: Bet Shammai says he is liable [for any subsequent damage to the deposit, as if he had already made use of it]. Bet Hillel says: He is not liable until he actually uses it, as it says (Exodus 22:7): “If he had not put his hand onto his neighbor’s property”. How is this so? If he tilted the jug and took a quarter-log of wine and the jug was then broken, he only pays the quarter-log. If he lifted it and then took a quarter-log and the jug was then broken, he pays for the whole jug.

If a man makes personal use of a deposit: Bet Shammai holds that he is at a disadvantage whether the value rises or falls. Bet Hillel says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which he put it to use. Rabbi Akiva says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which it is claimed. One who expresses his intention to use a deposit [for personal use]: Bet Shammai says he is liable [for any subsequent damage to the deposit, as if he had already made use of it]. Bet Hillel says: He is not liable until he actually uses it, as it says (Exodus 22:7): “If he had not put his hand onto his neighbor’s property”. How is this so? If he tilted the jug and took a quarter-log of wine and the jug was then broken, he only pays the quarter-log. If he lifted it and then took a quarter-log and the jug was then broken, he pays for the whole jug.

If a man makes personal use of a deposit: Bet Shammai holds that he is at a disadvantage whether the value rises or falls. Bet Hillel says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which he put it to use. Rabbi Akiva says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which it is claimed. One who expresses his intention to use a deposit [for personal use]: Bet Shammai says he is liable [for any subsequent damage to the deposit, as if he had already made use of it]. Bet Hillel says: He is not liable until he actually uses it, as it says (Exodus 22:7): “If he had not put his hand onto his neighbor’s property”. How is this so? If he tilted the jug and took a quarter-log of wine and the jug was then broken, he only pays the quarter-log. If he lifted it and then took a quarter-log and the jug was then broken, he pays for the whole jug.

If a man makes personal use of a deposit: Bet Shammai holds that he is at a disadvantage whether the value rises or falls. Bet Hillel says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which he put it to use. Rabbi Akiva says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which it is claimed. One who expresses his intention to use a deposit [for personal use]: Bet Shammai says he is liable [for any subsequent damage to the deposit, as if he had already made use of it]. Bet Hillel says: He is not liable until he actually uses it, as it says (Exodus 22:7): “If he had not put his hand onto his neighbor’s property”. How is this so? If he tilted the jug and took a quarter-log of wine and the jug was then broken, he only pays the quarter-log. If he lifted it and then took a quarter-log and the jug was then broken, he pays for the whole jug.

There are four types among those who frequent the study-house (bet midrash): He who attends but does not practice: he receives a reward for attendance. He who practices but does not attend: he receives a reward for practice. He who attends and practices: he is a pious man; He who neither attends nor practices: he is a wicked man.

Bet Shammai says: any [blood] which is to be sprinkled on the outer altar, if [the priest] applied [it] with one sprinkling, he has made atonement, [and in the case of a hatat two applications, but Bet Hillel says: also the case of the hatat if the priest applied it with one sprinkling it atones Therefore if he made the first application in the proper manner and the second [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time, it atones. If he made the first application [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time and the second outside the prescribed place, it is piggul and involves [the punishment of] karet.

Bet Shammai says: any [blood] which is to be sprinkled on the outer altar, if [the priest] applied [it] with one sprinkling, he has made atonement, [and in the case of a hatat two applications, but Bet Hillel says: also the case of the hatat if the priest applied it with one sprinkling it atones Therefore if he made the first application in the proper manner and the second [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time, it atones. If he made the first application [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time and the second outside the prescribed place, it is piggul and involves [the punishment of] karet.

Bullocks which are burned and goats which are burned: when they are burned in fulfillment of their prescribed commandment, they are burned in the ash depository (bet hadeshen), and they defile garments. But when they are not burned in fulfillment of their commandment, they are burned in the bet habirah and they do not defile garments.

Bullocks which are burned and goats which are burned: when they are burned in fulfillment of their prescribed commandment, they are burned in the ash depository (bet hadeshen), and they defile garments. But when they are not burned in fulfillment of their commandment, they are burned in the bet habirah and they do not defile garments.

From where did they bring the wine? Keruhim and Attulim rank are alpha their wine. Second to them are Bet Rimmah and Bet Lavan on the mountain and Kefar Signa in the valley. [Wine of the] whole land was valid but they used to bring it only from these places. One may not bring it from a manured field or from an irrigated field or from vines planted in a field sown with seeds; but if one did bring it [from these] it was valid. One may not bring wine from sun-dried grapes, but if one did bring it, it was valid. One may not bring old wine, the words of Rabbi. But the sages permit it. One may not bring sweet wine or smoked wine or cooked wine, and if one did bring it, it was invalid. One may not bring wine from grapes suspended [on reeds], but only from the vines growing close to the ground and from well-cultivated vineyards.

From where did they bring the wine? Keruhim and Attulim rank are alpha their wine. Second to them are Bet Rimmah and Bet Lavan on the mountain and Kefar Signa in the valley. [Wine of the] whole land was valid but they used to bring it only from these places. One may not bring it from a manured field or from an irrigated field or from vines planted in a field sown with seeds; but if one did bring it [from these] it was valid. One may not bring wine from sun-dried grapes, but if one did bring it, it was valid. One may not bring old wine, the words of Rabbi. But the sages permit it. One may not bring sweet wine or smoked wine or cooked wine, and if one did bring it, it was invalid. One may not bring wine from grapes suspended [on reeds], but only from the vines growing close to the ground and from well-cultivated vineyards.

One may reap on account of the saplings or in order to make a house for mourners or in order not to interrupt the bet hamidrash. One may not bind them in bundles but one may leave them in small heaps. The mitzvah of the omer is that it should be brought from the standing grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from the sheaves. The mitzvah is that it should be brought from moist (fresh) grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from dry grain. The mitzvah is that it should be reaped at night. If it was reaped at day it is valid. And it overrides the Shabbat.

Both the two loaves and the showbread their kneading and their shaping were performed outside [the Temple Court], and their baking was inside. And they do not override the Shabbat. Rabbi Judah says: all of these were performed inside [the Temple Court]. Rabbi Shimon says: One should always accustom himself to say, “The two loaves and the showbread were valid whether made in the Temple Court or in Bet Pagi.”

If one slaughtered with [the smooth edge of] a hand sickle, with a flint or with a reed, the slaughtering is valid. All may slaughter; at all times one may slaughter; and with any implement one may slaughter, except a scythe, a saw, teeth or a finger nail, since these strangle. One who slaughtered with a scythe, moving it forward only: Bet Shammai declare it invalid, But Bet Hillel declare it valid. If the teeth of the scythe were filed away it is regarded as an ordinary knife.

If one slaughtered with [the smooth edge of] a hand sickle, with a flint or with a reed, the slaughtering is valid. All may slaughter; at all times one may slaughter; and with any implement one may slaughter, except a scythe, a saw, teeth or a finger nail, since these strangle. One who slaughtered with a scythe, moving it forward only: Bet Shammai declare it invalid, But Bet Hillel declare it valid. If the teeth of the scythe were filed away it is regarded as an ordinary knife.

Every kind of flesh is forbidden to be cooked in milk, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. And it is also forbidden to place it upon the table with cheese, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. One who vows not to eat meat, he is allowed to eat the flesh of fish and locusts. Fowl may be placed upon the table together with cheese but may not be eaten with it, the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel say: it may neither be placed [upon the table together with cheese] nor eaten with it. Rabbi Yose said: this is one of the leniencies of Bet shammai and the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Concerning what table did they speak? Concerning the table upon which one eats; but on the table whereon the food is set out one may place the one beside the other, and not be concerned.

Every kind of flesh is forbidden to be cooked in milk, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. And it is also forbidden to place it upon the table with cheese, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. One who vows not to eat meat, he is allowed to eat the flesh of fish and locusts. Fowl may be placed upon the table together with cheese but may not be eaten with it, the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel say: it may neither be placed [upon the table together with cheese] nor eaten with it. Rabbi Yose said: this is one of the leniencies of Bet shammai and the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Concerning what table did they speak? Concerning the table upon which one eats; but on the table whereon the food is set out one may place the one beside the other, and not be concerned.

Every kind of flesh is forbidden to be cooked in milk, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. And it is also forbidden to place it upon the table with cheese, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. One who vows not to eat meat, he is allowed to eat the flesh of fish and locusts. Fowl may be placed upon the table together with cheese but may not be eaten with it, the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel say: it may neither be placed [upon the table together with cheese] nor eaten with it. Rabbi Yose said: this is one of the leniencies of Bet shammai and the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Concerning what table did they speak? Concerning the table upon which one eats; but on the table whereon the food is set out one may place the one beside the other, and not be concerned.

Every kind of flesh is forbidden to be cooked in milk, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. And it is also forbidden to place it upon the table with cheese, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. One who vows not to eat meat, he is allowed to eat the flesh of fish and locusts. Fowl may be placed upon the table together with cheese but may not be eaten with it, the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel say: it may neither be placed [upon the table together with cheese] nor eaten with it. Rabbi Yose said: this is one of the leniencies of Bet shammai and the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Concerning what table did they speak? Concerning the table upon which one eats; but on the table whereon the food is set out one may place the one beside the other, and not be concerned.

How much is “many”? Bet Shammai say: [at least] two sheep, as it is said, “A man shall rear a young cow and two sheep (tzon)” (Isaiah 7:21). Bet Hillel say: five, as it is said, “Five dressed sheep (tzon)” (I Samuel 28:18). Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: five sheep, which each produce [a fleece which weighs] a maneh and a half, are subject to the law of the first of the fleece. But the sages say: five sheep, whatever their fleeces weigh. And how much should one give him? The weight of five selas in Judah, which is equal to ten selas in Galilee. Bleached wool and not dirty wool, sufficient to make from it a small garment, for it is written, “Give him,” when there is enough to be considered a gift. If the owner did not manage to give [the fleece to the priest] until he dyed it, he is exempt. If he bleached it but did not dye it, he is still liable. If a man bought the fleeces of a flock belonging to a non-Jew, he is exempt from the law of the first of the fleece. If a man bought the fleeces of a flock belonging to his neighbor: If the seller kept some back, the seller is liable, But if he did not withhold anything, the buyer is liable. If he had two kinds of wool, grey and white, and he sold the grey but not the white, or [if he sold the wool] of the males but not of the females, each must give [the first of the fleece] for himself.

How much is “many”? Bet Shammai say: [at least] two sheep, as it is said, “A man shall rear a young cow and two sheep (tzon)” (Isaiah 7:21). Bet Hillel say: five, as it is said, “Five dressed sheep (tzon)” (I Samuel 28:18). Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: five sheep, which each produce [a fleece which weighs] a maneh and a half, are subject to the law of the first of the fleece. But the sages say: five sheep, whatever their fleeces weigh. And how much should one give him? The weight of five selas in Judah, which is equal to ten selas in Galilee. Bleached wool and not dirty wool, sufficient to make from it a small garment, for it is written, “Give him,” when there is enough to be considered a gift. If the owner did not manage to give [the fleece to the priest] until he dyed it, he is exempt. If he bleached it but did not dye it, he is still liable. If a man bought the fleeces of a flock belonging to a non-Jew, he is exempt from the law of the first of the fleece. If a man bought the fleeces of a flock belonging to his neighbor: If the seller kept some back, the seller is liable, But if he did not withhold anything, the buyer is liable. If he had two kinds of wool, grey and white, and he sold the grey but not the white, or [if he sold the wool] of the males but not of the females, each must give [the first of the fleece] for himself.

Bet Shammai says: An Israelite must not be invited to share [a blemished first born] with a priest. But Bet Hillel permits this, even in the case of a non-Jew. If a first born has a blood attack, even if it is going to die, its blood may not be let, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: he may let its blood, as long as he does not make a blemish. And if he made a blemish, he must not slaughter it on account of this. Rabbi Shimon says: he may let blood, even though he makes a blemish.

Bet Shammai says: An Israelite must not be invited to share [a blemished first born] with a priest. But Bet Hillel permits this, even in the case of a non-Jew. If a first born has a blood attack, even if it is going to die, its blood may not be let, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: he may let its blood, as long as he does not make a blemish. And if he made a blemish, he must not slaughter it on account of this. Rabbi Shimon says: he may let blood, even though he makes a blemish.

They were slaves of the priests, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose said: they were of families from Bet Hapegarim, Bet-Zipparya and from Emmaus, places from which priests would marry [women]. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonos said: they were Levites.

They were slaves of the priests, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose said: they were of families from Bet Hapegarim, Bet-Zipparya and from Emmaus, places from which priests would marry [women]. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonos said: they were Levites.

If a woman miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day: Bet Shammai say: she is exempted from an offering. But Bet Hillel say: she is liable. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: what is the difference between the eve of the eighty-first day and the eighty-first day itself? Since these are considered equal with regard to [blood] uncleanness, why should they not be considered equal also with reference to the offerings? Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you said this in the case where she miscarries on the eighty-first day where it occurred at a time when she was fit to bring an offering, can you say this where she miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, where it did not occur at a time when she was fit to bring an offering? Bet Hillel said to them: the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat shall prove it, where it did not take place at a time when she was fit to bring an offering and yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering. Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you says this of the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat for although it is not fit for offerings of an individual, it is at least fit for communal offerings, would you maintain this concerning a woman who miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, seeing that the night is fit neither for offerings of the individual nor for communal offerings? As to [your argument of the uncleanness of] the blood, it proves nothing, for if she aborted within the period of cleanness the blood is unclean, and yet she is exempted from an offering.

If a woman miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day: Bet Shammai say: she is exempted from an offering. But Bet Hillel say: she is liable. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: what is the difference between the eve of the eighty-first day and the eighty-first day itself? Since these are considered equal with regard to [blood] uncleanness, why should they not be considered equal also with reference to the offerings? Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you said this in the case where she miscarries on the eighty-first day where it occurred at a time when she was fit to bring an offering, can you say this where she miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, where it did not occur at a time when she was fit to bring an offering? Bet Hillel said to them: the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat shall prove it, where it did not take place at a time when she was fit to bring an offering and yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering. Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you says this of the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat for although it is not fit for offerings of an individual, it is at least fit for communal offerings, would you maintain this concerning a woman who miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, seeing that the night is fit neither for offerings of the individual nor for communal offerings? As to [your argument of the uncleanness of] the blood, it proves nothing, for if she aborted within the period of cleanness the blood is unclean, and yet she is exempted from an offering.

If a woman miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day: Bet Shammai say: she is exempted from an offering. But Bet Hillel say: she is liable. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: what is the difference between the eve of the eighty-first day and the eighty-first day itself? Since these are considered equal with regard to [blood] uncleanness, why should they not be considered equal also with reference to the offerings? Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you said this in the case where she miscarries on the eighty-first day where it occurred at a time when she was fit to bring an offering, can you say this where she miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, where it did not occur at a time when she was fit to bring an offering? Bet Hillel said to them: the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat shall prove it, where it did not take place at a time when she was fit to bring an offering and yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering. Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you says this of the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat for although it is not fit for offerings of an individual, it is at least fit for communal offerings, would you maintain this concerning a woman who miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, seeing that the night is fit neither for offerings of the individual nor for communal offerings? As to [your argument of the uncleanness of] the blood, it proves nothing, for if she aborted within the period of cleanness the blood is unclean, and yet she is exempted from an offering.

If a woman miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day: Bet Shammai say: she is exempted from an offering. But Bet Hillel say: she is liable. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: what is the difference between the eve of the eighty-first day and the eighty-first day itself? Since these are considered equal with regard to [blood] uncleanness, why should they not be considered equal also with reference to the offerings? Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you said this in the case where she miscarries on the eighty-first day where it occurred at a time when she was fit to bring an offering, can you say this where she miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, where it did not occur at a time when she was fit to bring an offering? Bet Hillel said to them: the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat shall prove it, where it did not take place at a time when she was fit to bring an offering and yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering. Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you says this of the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat for although it is not fit for offerings of an individual, it is at least fit for communal offerings, would you maintain this concerning a woman who miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, seeing that the night is fit neither for offerings of the individual nor for communal offerings? As to [your argument of the uncleanness of] the blood, it proves nothing, for if she aborted within the period of cleanness the blood is unclean, and yet she is exempted from an offering.

If a woman miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day: Bet Shammai say: she is exempted from an offering. But Bet Hillel say: she is liable. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: what is the difference between the eve of the eighty-first day and the eighty-first day itself? Since these are considered equal with regard to [blood] uncleanness, why should they not be considered equal also with reference to the offerings? Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you said this in the case where she miscarries on the eighty-first day where it occurred at a time when she was fit to bring an offering, can you say this where she miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, where it did not occur at a time when she was fit to bring an offering? Bet Hillel said to them: the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat shall prove it, where it did not take place at a time when she was fit to bring an offering and yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering. Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you says this of the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat for although it is not fit for offerings of an individual, it is at least fit for communal offerings, would you maintain this concerning a woman who miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, seeing that the night is fit neither for offerings of the individual nor for communal offerings? As to [your argument of the uncleanness of] the blood, it proves nothing, for if she aborted within the period of cleanness the blood is unclean, and yet she is exempted from an offering.

If a woman miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day: Bet Shammai say: she is exempted from an offering. But Bet Hillel say: she is liable. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: what is the difference between the eve of the eighty-first day and the eighty-first day itself? Since these are considered equal with regard to [blood] uncleanness, why should they not be considered equal also with reference to the offerings? Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you said this in the case where she miscarries on the eighty-first day where it occurred at a time when she was fit to bring an offering, can you say this where she miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, where it did not occur at a time when she was fit to bring an offering? Bet Hillel said to them: the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat shall prove it, where it did not take place at a time when she was fit to bring an offering and yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering. Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you says this of the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat for although it is not fit for offerings of an individual, it is at least fit for communal offerings, would you maintain this concerning a woman who miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, seeing that the night is fit neither for offerings of the individual nor for communal offerings? As to [your argument of the uncleanness of] the blood, it proves nothing, for if she aborted within the period of cleanness the blood is unclean, and yet she is exempted from an offering.

If a woman miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day: Bet Shammai say: she is exempted from an offering. But Bet Hillel say: she is liable. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: what is the difference between the eve of the eighty-first day and the eighty-first day itself? Since these are considered equal with regard to [blood] uncleanness, why should they not be considered equal also with reference to the offerings? Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you said this in the case where she miscarries on the eighty-first day where it occurred at a time when she was fit to bring an offering, can you say this where she miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, where it did not occur at a time when she was fit to bring an offering? Bet Hillel said to them: the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat shall prove it, where it did not take place at a time when she was fit to bring an offering and yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering. Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you says this of the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat for although it is not fit for offerings of an individual, it is at least fit for communal offerings, would you maintain this concerning a woman who miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, seeing that the night is fit neither for offerings of the individual nor for communal offerings? As to [your argument of the uncleanness of] the blood, it proves nothing, for if she aborted within the period of cleanness the blood is unclean, and yet she is exempted from an offering.

The stones both of the ascent and of the altar were taken from the valley of Bet Kerem. They dug into virgin soil and brought from there whole stones on which no iron had been lifted, since iron disqualifies by mere touch, though a flaw made by anything could disqualify. If one of them received a flaw, it was disqualified, but the rest were not. They were whitewashed twice a year, once at Pesah and once at Hag, and the Sanctuary was whitewashed once a year, at Pesah. Rabbi says: they were whitewashed every Friday with a cloth on account of the blood stains. The plaster was not laid on with an iron trowel, for fear that it might touch and disqualify. Since iron was created to shorten man's days and the altar was created to prolong man's days, and it is not right therefore that that which shortens should be lifted against that which prolongs.

A jar that was full of clean liquids, with a siphon in it, and it had a tightly fitting cover and was in a tent in which there was a corpse: Bet Shammai says: both the jar and the liquids are clean but the siphon is unclean. And Bet Hillel says: the siphon also is clean. Bet Hillel changed their mind and ruled in agreement with Bet Shammai.

A jar that was full of clean liquids, with a siphon in it, and it had a tightly fitting cover and was in a tent in which there was a corpse: Bet Shammai says: both the jar and the liquids are clean but the siphon is unclean. And Bet Hillel says: the siphon also is clean. Bet Hillel changed their mind and ruled in agreement with Bet Shammai.

A jar that was full of clean liquids, with a siphon in it, and it had a tightly fitting cover and was in a tent in which there was a corpse: Bet Shammai says: both the jar and the liquids are clean but the siphon is unclean. And Bet Hillel says: the siphon also is clean. Bet Hillel changed their mind and ruled in agreement with Bet Shammai.

A jar that was full of clean liquids, with a siphon in it, and it had a tightly fitting cover and was in a tent in which there was a corpse: Bet Shammai says: both the jar and the liquids are clean but the siphon is unclean. And Bet Hillel says: the siphon also is clean. Bet Hillel changed their mind and ruled in agreement with Bet Shammai.

If vessels are made from iron ore, from smelted iron, from the hoop of a wheel, from sheets, from plating, from the bases, rims or handles of vessels, from chippings or filings, they are clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even those made of pieces of vessels. From [vessels that are made] of fragments of vessels, from pieces of old vessels, or from nails that were known to have been made from vessels, are unclean. [If they were made] from ordinary nails: Bet Shammai says: they are unclean, And Bet Hillel says that they are clean.

If vessels are made from iron ore, from smelted iron, from the hoop of a wheel, from sheets, from plating, from the bases, rims or handles of vessels, from chippings or filings, they are clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even those made of pieces of vessels. From [vessels that are made] of fragments of vessels, from pieces of old vessels, or from nails that were known to have been made from vessels, are unclean. [If they were made] from ordinary nails: Bet Shammai says: they are unclean, And Bet Hillel says that they are clean.

A staff to the end of which he attached a nail like an axe is susceptible to impurity. If the staff was studded with nails it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon ruled: only if he put in three rows. In all cases where he put them in as ornamentation the staff is clean. If he attached a tube to its end, and so also in the case of a door, it is clean. If it was once an independent vessel and then it was fixed to the staff, it remains susceptible to impurity. When does it become pure? Bet Shammai says: when it is damaged; And Bet Hillel says: when it is joined on.

A staff to the end of which he attached a nail like an axe is susceptible to impurity. If the staff was studded with nails it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon ruled: only if he put in three rows. In all cases where he put them in as ornamentation the staff is clean. If he attached a tube to its end, and so also in the case of a door, it is clean. If it was once an independent vessel and then it was fixed to the staff, it remains susceptible to impurity. When does it become pure? Bet Shammai says: when it is damaged; And Bet Hillel says: when it is joined on.

A wooden chest: Beth Shammai says: it is measured on the inside; And Bet Hillel says: on the outside. Both agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim are not included in the measurement. Rabbi Yose says: both agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim are included in the measurement, but the space between them is not included. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri ruled: if the legs are one handbreadth high the space between them is not included in the measurement, otherwise it is included.

A bagpipe is not susceptible to midras uncleanness. A trough for mixing mortar: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras uncleanness , And Bet Hillel says it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness only. If a trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav is split, it becomes susceptible to midras uncleanness. If he left it out in the rain and it swelled it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness alone. [If he left it out] during the east wind and it split, it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. In this respect the law is stricter in the case of remnants of wooden vessels than in [that of such vessels] in their original condition. It is also stricter in regard to the remnants of wicker vessels than [to such vessels] as are in their original condition, for when they are in their original condition they are insusceptible to uncleanness until their rim is finished, but after their rim has been finished, even though their edges fell away leaving only the slightest trace of them, they are unclean.

A bagpipe is not susceptible to midras uncleanness. A trough for mixing mortar: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras uncleanness , And Bet Hillel says it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness only. If a trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav is split, it becomes susceptible to midras uncleanness. If he left it out in the rain and it swelled it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness alone. [If he left it out] during the east wind and it split, it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. In this respect the law is stricter in the case of remnants of wooden vessels than in [that of such vessels] in their original condition. It is also stricter in regard to the remnants of wicker vessels than [to such vessels] as are in their original condition, for when they are in their original condition they are insusceptible to uncleanness until their rim is finished, but after their rim has been finished, even though their edges fell away leaving only the slightest trace of them, they are unclean.

If a sheet that was susceptible to midras uncleanness made into a curtain, it becomes clean from midras uncleanness but it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. When does it become insusceptible to [midras] uncleanness? Bet Shammai says: when the loops have been tied to it. . Bet Hillel says: when it has been attached. Rabbi Akiva says: when it has been fixed.

If a sheet that was susceptible to midras uncleanness made into a curtain, it becomes clean from midras uncleanness but it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. When does it become insusceptible to [midras] uncleanness? Bet Shammai says: when the loops have been tied to it. . Bet Hillel says: when it has been attached. Rabbi Akiva says: when it has been fixed.

A bride's stool which lost the coverings for the seatboards: Bet Shammai rules that it still susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even the frame of the stool is susceptible to uncleanness. A stool which was fixed to a kneading-trough, Bet Shammai rules that it susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even one made out of it is susceptible to uncleanness.

A bride's stool which lost the coverings for the seatboards: Bet Shammai rules that it still susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even the frame of the stool is susceptible to uncleanness. A stool which was fixed to a kneading-trough, Bet Shammai rules that it susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even one made out of it is susceptible to uncleanness.

A bride's stool which lost the coverings for the seatboards: Bet Shammai rules that it still susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even the frame of the stool is susceptible to uncleanness. A stool which was fixed to a kneading-trough, Bet Shammai rules that it susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even one made out of it is susceptible to uncleanness.

A bride's stool which lost the coverings for the seatboards: Bet Shammai rules that it still susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even the frame of the stool is susceptible to uncleanness. A stool which was fixed to a kneading-trough, Bet Shammai rules that it susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even one made out of it is susceptible to uncleanness.

A bag or wrapper for garments is susceptible to midras. A bag or wrapper for purple wool: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras, But Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible only to corpse uncleanness. A hide which was made to be a covering for vessels is not susceptible to uncleanness, but for weights it is susceptible. Rabbi Yose says in the name of his father that it is pure.

A bag or wrapper for garments is susceptible to midras. A bag or wrapper for purple wool: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras, But Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible only to corpse uncleanness. A hide which was made to be a covering for vessels is not susceptible to uncleanness, but for weights it is susceptible. Rabbi Yose says in the name of his father that it is pure.

Covers of scrolls, whether they are decorated or not, are susceptible to uncleanness according to the view of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: those that are decorated are pure, but those that are not decorated are susceptible. Rabban Gamaliel says: both the former and the latter are pure.

Covers of scrolls, whether they are decorated or not, are susceptible to uncleanness according to the view of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: those that are decorated are pure, but those that are not decorated are susceptible. Rabban Gamaliel says: both the former and the latter are pure.

The remnant of the shaft of an ox-goad at its lower end is regarded as connected up to a length of seven handbreadths. The shaft of a householders' shovel Bet Shammai says: to a length of seven handbreadths, And Bet Hillel says: eight handbreadths. That of the plasterers: Bet Shammai says: nine handbreadths And Bet Hillel says: ten handbreadths. Any parts exceeding these lengths, if he wanted to retain it, is also susceptible to uncleanness. The shafts of fire instruments are susceptible to uncleanness whatsoever their length.

The remnant of the shaft of an ox-goad at its lower end is regarded as connected up to a length of seven handbreadths. The shaft of a householders' shovel Bet Shammai says: to a length of seven handbreadths, And Bet Hillel says: eight handbreadths. That of the plasterers: Bet Shammai says: nine handbreadths And Bet Hillel says: ten handbreadths. Any parts exceeding these lengths, if he wanted to retain it, is also susceptible to uncleanness. The shafts of fire instruments are susceptible to uncleanness whatsoever their length.

The remnant of the shaft of an ox-goad at its lower end is regarded as connected up to a length of seven handbreadths. The shaft of a householders' shovel Bet Shammai says: to a length of seven handbreadths, And Bet Hillel says: eight handbreadths. That of the plasterers: Bet Shammai says: nine handbreadths And Bet Hillel says: ten handbreadths. Any parts exceeding these lengths, if he wanted to retain it, is also susceptible to uncleanness. The shafts of fire instruments are susceptible to uncleanness whatsoever their length.

The remnant of the shaft of an ox-goad at its lower end is regarded as connected up to a length of seven handbreadths. The shaft of a householders' shovel Bet Shammai says: to a length of seven handbreadths, And Bet Hillel says: eight handbreadths. That of the plasterers: Bet Shammai says: nine handbreadths And Bet Hillel says: ten handbreadths. Any parts exceeding these lengths, if he wanted to retain it, is also susceptible to uncleanness. The shafts of fire instruments are susceptible to uncleanness whatsoever their length.

The following defile by contact and carriage but not by overshadowing: A bone of barleycorn size, Earth from a foreign country, A bet peras, A limb of a corpse, or a limb [severed] from a living person which has no longer its appropriate flesh, A spine or a skull which is deficient. How much is [considered] a deficiency in the spine? Bet Shammai say: two vertebrae, But Bet Hillel say: even one vertebra. And in the skull? Bet Shammai say: [the size of a] hole [made] by a drill, But Bet Hillel say: as much as would be taken from a living person and he would die. Of what drill did they speak? Of the small one [used] by physicians, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: of the large one in the Temple-chamber.

The following defile by contact and carriage but not by overshadowing: A bone of barleycorn size, Earth from a foreign country, A bet peras, A limb of a corpse, or a limb [severed] from a living person which has no longer its appropriate flesh, A spine or a skull which is deficient. How much is [considered] a deficiency in the spine? Bet Shammai say: two vertebrae, But Bet Hillel say: even one vertebra. And in the skull? Bet Shammai say: [the size of a] hole [made] by a drill, But Bet Hillel say: as much as would be taken from a living person and he would die. Of what drill did they speak? Of the small one [used] by physicians, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: of the large one in the Temple-chamber.

The following defile by contact and carriage but not by overshadowing: A bone of barleycorn size, Earth from a foreign country, A bet peras, A limb of a corpse, or a limb [severed] from a living person which has no longer its appropriate flesh, A spine or a skull which is deficient. How much is [considered] a deficiency in the spine? Bet Shammai say: two vertebrae, But Bet Hillel say: even one vertebra. And in the skull? Bet Shammai say: [the size of a] hole [made] by a drill, But Bet Hillel say: as much as would be taken from a living person and he would die. Of what drill did they speak? Of the small one [used] by physicians, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: of the large one in the Temple-chamber.

The following defile by contact and carriage but not by overshadowing: A bone of barleycorn size, Earth from a foreign country, A bet peras, A limb of a corpse, or a limb [severed] from a living person which has no longer its appropriate flesh, A spine or a skull which is deficient. How much is [considered] a deficiency in the spine? Bet Shammai say: two vertebrae, But Bet Hillel say: even one vertebra. And in the skull? Bet Shammai say: [the size of a] hole [made] by a drill, But Bet Hillel say: as much as would be taken from a living person and he would die. Of what drill did they speak? Of the small one [used] by physicians, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: of the large one in the Temple-chamber.

The following defile by contact and carriage but not by overshadowing: A bone of barleycorn size, Earth from a foreign country, A bet peras, A limb of a corpse, or a limb [severed] from a living person which has no longer its appropriate flesh, A spine or a skull which is deficient. How much is [considered] a deficiency in the spine? Bet Shammai say: two vertebrae, But Bet Hillel say: even one vertebra. And in the skull? Bet Shammai say: [the size of a] hole [made] by a drill, But Bet Hillel say: as much as would be taken from a living person and he would die. Of what drill did they speak? Of the small one [used] by physicians, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: of the large one in the Temple-chamber.

[With regard to] an oven which stood in a house, with its outlet curved to the outside [of the house], and those burying a corpse overshadowed it: Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the oven becomes unclean, but the house remains clean. Rabbi Akiva says: even the oven remains clean.

[With regard to] an oven which stood in a house, with its outlet curved to the outside [of the house], and those burying a corpse overshadowed it: Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the oven becomes unclean, but the house remains clean. Rabbi Akiva says: even the oven remains clean.

[With regard to] a hatch between the house and the upper story, if there was a pot placed over it and it was perforated [by a hole of sufficient size] to admit liquid: Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the pot becomes unclean but the upper story remains clean. Rabbi Akiva says: all remains clean.

[With regard to] a hatch between the house and the upper story, if there was a pot placed over it and it was perforated [by a hole of sufficient size] to admit liquid: Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the pot becomes unclean but the upper story remains clean. Rabbi Akiva says: all remains clean.

If [the pot] was whole: Bet Hillel says: it protects all [from uncleanness]. Bet Shammai says: it protects only food, drink and earthenware vessels. Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.

If [the pot] was whole: Bet Hillel says: it protects all [from uncleanness]. Bet Shammai says: it protects only food, drink and earthenware vessels. Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.

If [the pot] was whole: Bet Hillel says: it protects all [from uncleanness]. Bet Shammai says: it protects only food, drink and earthenware vessels. Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.

If [the pot] was whole: Bet Hillel says: it protects all [from uncleanness]. Bet Shammai says: it protects only food, drink and earthenware vessels. Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.

[With regard to] a flagon that is full of pure liquid, the flagon is defiled with seven days' impurity but the liquid remains clean. But if one poured it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. If a woman was kneading [in the upper story] at a trough, the woman and the trough become unclean with seven days impurity, but the dough remains clean But if one turned it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.

[With regard to] a flagon that is full of pure liquid, the flagon is defiled with seven days' impurity but the liquid remains clean. But if one poured it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. If a woman was kneading [in the upper story] at a trough, the woman and the trough become unclean with seven days impurity, but the dough remains clean But if one turned it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.

If a corpse is in a house in which there are many doors, they all become unclean. If one of them was opened, that one becomes unclean but all the rest remain clean. If he intended to carry out the corpse through one of them or through a window of four hand breadths square, he protects all the other doors. Bet Shammai says: the intention must have been formed before the person died. Bet Hillel say: even after he died. If [a door] was blocked up and it was decided to open it: Bet Shammai says: [it is effective] as soon he opens a [a space] four handbreadths square. Bet Hillel says: as soon as [the process] has begun. They agree, however, that when making an opening for the first time, four handbreadths must be opened up.

If a corpse is in a house in which there are many doors, they all become unclean. If one of them was opened, that one becomes unclean but all the rest remain clean. If he intended to carry out the corpse through one of them or through a window of four hand breadths square, he protects all the other doors. Bet Shammai says: the intention must have been formed before the person died. Bet Hillel say: even after he died. If [a door] was blocked up and it was decided to open it: Bet Shammai says: [it is effective] as soon he opens a [a space] four handbreadths square. Bet Hillel says: as soon as [the process] has begun. They agree, however, that when making an opening for the first time, four handbreadths must be opened up.

If a corpse is in a house in which there are many doors, they all become unclean. If one of them was opened, that one becomes unclean but all the rest remain clean. If he intended to carry out the corpse through one of them or through a window of four hand breadths square, he protects all the other doors. Bet Shammai says: the intention must have been formed before the person died. Bet Hillel say: even after he died. If [a door] was blocked up and it was decided to open it: Bet Shammai says: [it is effective] as soon he opens a [a space] four handbreadths square. Bet Hillel says: as soon as [the process] has begun. They agree, however, that when making an opening for the first time, four handbreadths must be opened up.

If a corpse is in a house in which there are many doors, they all become unclean. If one of them was opened, that one becomes unclean but all the rest remain clean. If he intended to carry out the corpse through one of them or through a window of four hand breadths square, he protects all the other doors. Bet Shammai says: the intention must have been formed before the person died. Bet Hillel say: even after he died. If [a door] was blocked up and it was decided to open it: Bet Shammai says: [it is effective] as soon he opens a [a space] four handbreadths square. Bet Hillel says: as soon as [the process] has begun. They agree, however, that when making an opening for the first time, four handbreadths must be opened up.

A house, which has been split [into two]: If there is uncleanness in the outer [part], vessels in the inner [part] remain clean. If the uncleanness is in the inner [part], vessels in the outer [are clean]: Bet Shammai says: when the split is four handbreadths wide; But Bet Hillel says: [when the split is of] any size. Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Hillel: [when it is] one handbreadth wide.

A house, which has been split [into two]: If there is uncleanness in the outer [part], vessels in the inner [part] remain clean. If the uncleanness is in the inner [part], vessels in the outer [are clean]: Bet Shammai says: when the split is four handbreadths wide; But Bet Hillel says: [when the split is of] any size. Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Hillel: [when it is] one handbreadth wide.

A house, which has been split [into two]: If there is uncleanness in the outer [part], vessels in the inner [part] remain clean. If the uncleanness is in the inner [part], vessels in the outer [are clean]: Bet Shammai says: when the split is four handbreadths wide; But Bet Hillel says: [when the split is of] any size. Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Hillel: [when it is] one handbreadth wide.

A thick woolen jacket or a thick wooden block does not bring uncleanness until they are one handbreadth high off the ground. If [garments] are folded one above the other they do not bring uncleanness until the uppermost is one handbreadth high off the ground. If a person were placed there [under the split in the portico]: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring the uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: a person is hollow and his uppermost side brings the uncleanness.

A thick woolen jacket or a thick wooden block does not bring uncleanness until they are one handbreadth high off the ground. If [garments] are folded one above the other they do not bring uncleanness until the uppermost is one handbreadth high off the ground. If a person were placed there [under the split in the portico]: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring the uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: a person is hollow and his uppermost side brings the uncleanness.

If a person was looking out of a window and overshadowed a funeral procession: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: he does bring the uncleanness. They agree that if he was dressed in his clothes or if there were two persons, one above the other, they bring the uncleanness.

If a person was looking out of a window and overshadowed a funeral procession: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: he does bring the uncleanness. They agree that if he was dressed in his clothes or if there were two persons, one above the other, they bring the uncleanness.

If a person was lying on the threshold and the funeral procession overshadowed him: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring the uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: he does bring the uncleanness.

If a person was lying on the threshold and the funeral procession overshadowed him: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring the uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: he does bring the uncleanness.

[In the case] where the uncleanness was in the house and clean persons overshadowed him: Bet Shammai declares them clean, But Bet Hillel declares them unclean.

[In the case] where the uncleanness was in the house and clean persons overshadowed him: Bet Shammai declares them clean, But Bet Hillel declares them unclean.

A cellar in a house with a candlestick in it, whose calyx protrudes and an olive-basket is placed such that if the candlestick was taken away the olive-basket would still remain over the mouth of the cellar: Bet Shammai says: the cellar remains clean but the candlestick becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the candlestick also remains clean. But they agree that if the olive-basket would fall [into the cellar] if the candlestick was removed, all would become unclean.

A cellar in a house with a candlestick in it, whose calyx protrudes and an olive-basket is placed such that if the candlestick was taken away the olive-basket would still remain over the mouth of the cellar: Bet Shammai says: the cellar remains clean but the candlestick becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the candlestick also remains clean. But they agree that if the olive-basket would fall [into the cellar] if the candlestick was removed, all would become unclean.

One who makes a new light hole, its minimum size is that of a hole made by the large drill of the Temple chamber. The remains of a light-hole [the size is] two fingerbreadths high by a thumb-breadth broad. The following is considered the remains of a light-hole: a window that a person had blocked up but had not been able to finish [being blocked up]. [A hole] that was bored by water, or by reptiles or eaten away by salt: the minimum size is that of a fist. If he intended to use it, its minimum size is one handbreadth square; For lighting its minimum size is that of a hole made by the drill. The holes in grating or lattice-work may be joined together to form [an opening] the size of a hole made by the drill, according to the opinion of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: unless there is a hole of the size made by the drill in one place. [The above applies] for purposes of allowing the uncleanness to come in or to go out. Rabbi Shimon says: only for allowing the uncleanness to come in; but for allowing the uncleanness to go out [the minimum size] is one handbreadth square.

One who makes a new light hole, its minimum size is that of a hole made by the large drill of the Temple chamber. The remains of a light-hole [the size is] two fingerbreadths high by a thumb-breadth broad. The following is considered the remains of a light-hole: a window that a person had blocked up but had not been able to finish [being blocked up]. [A hole] that was bored by water, or by reptiles or eaten away by salt: the minimum size is that of a fist. If he intended to use it, its minimum size is one handbreadth square; For lighting its minimum size is that of a hole made by the drill. The holes in grating or lattice-work may be joined together to form [an opening] the size of a hole made by the drill, according to the opinion of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: unless there is a hole of the size made by the drill in one place. [The above applies] for purposes of allowing the uncleanness to come in or to go out. Rabbi Shimon says: only for allowing the uncleanness to come in; but for allowing the uncleanness to go out [the minimum size] is one handbreadth square.

One who makes a place for a rod, for tongs, or a lamp, the minimum size is whatever is needful, according to the word of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: one handbreadth square. [If it was made] for a peep-hole, for speaking through to his fellow, or for [human] use, the minimum size is one handbreadth square.