hillel

They said to him : Thou didst justly incur a penalty for thyself, in that thou didst transgress the view of Bet Hillel.

GEMARA It is all very well that Bet Hillel explain their reasons and the reason of Bet Shammai ; but why do not Bet Shammai agree with Bet Hillel?

GEMARA It is all very well that Bet Hillel explain their reasons and the reason of Bet Shammai ; but why do not Bet Shammai agree with Bet Hillel?

And Bet Hillel? They answer that it is self-evident that they may read [the Shema'] while even on a journey.

The Rabbis have taught : Bet Hillel say : When standing they may read [the Shema'], when sitting they may read, when reclining they may read, when walking by the way they may read, when doing work they may read. It once happened that R. Ishmael and R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah were dining in a certain place, the former reclining and the latter sitting upright. When the time for reading the Shema' arrived, R. Eleazar reclined and R. Ishmael sat up. R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah said to R. Ishmael, "[Ishmael] My brother, I will narrate a parable for thee. To what is this like? To one who is told 'Thy beard is well grown' and he answers, 'Then it shall be taken in hand by the barbers. ' So art thou ; all the time that I was sitting up thou wert reclining, but now that I have reclined thou hast sat up !"

He replied, "I have acted according to the teaching of Bet Hillel, and thou according to the teaching of Bet Shammai. Not only that, [I sat up] lest the disciples see this and fix the Halakah for future generations."

Shouldest thou say, "Bet Hillel also hold [that the Shema' may be read] in a reclining position!" that is so, but only when one was reclining from the first ; but in thy case, since hitherto thou has been sitting up and now thou reclinest, they will say, "We have to infer that [our teachers] agree with the opinion of Bet Shammai," and there is a fear, that the disciples seeing this, will fix the Halakah accordingly for future generations.

Rab Ezekiel taught : If a man acted in accordance with the view of Bet Shammai, he has done [rightly] ; if in accordance with the view of Bet Hillel, he has done [rightly].

Rab Joseph said : If he acted in accordance with the view of Bet Shammai, he has done nothing at all. For there is a Mishnaic teaching : If the head and greater part of a man's body be in a Sukkah and his table inside his house, Bet Shammai pronounce it invalid, but Bet Hillel declare it valid.

Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai, "It once happened that the Elders of Bet Shammai and the Elders of Bet Hillel went to visit R. Johanan b. ha-Horanit and they found him with his head and the greater part of his body in the Sukkah and his table inside his house, but they said nothing to him."

Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai, "It once happened that the Elders of Bet Shammai and the Elders of Bet Hillel went to visit R. Johanan b. ha-Horanit and they found him with his head and the greater part of his body in the Sukkah and his table inside his house, but they said nothing to him."

Rab Nahman b. Isaac said : If one acted according to the view of Bet Shammai, he is worthy of death ; for we have learnt in our Mishnah: R. Tarphon said: I was once journeying by the way and I reclined to read [the Shema'] according to the view of Bet Shammai, and I placed myself in danger on account of robbers. They said to him : Thou didst justly incur a penalty for thyself, in that thou didst transgress the view of Bet Hillel.

But lo, there is a teaching : Bet Hillel say : Workmen may remain at their work and read it !

There is a further teaching : When one is about to enter a regular privy, he divests himself of the Tefillin at a [minimum] distance of four cubits, leaves them on the window-sill which is near the public road, and then enters. When he comes out, he walks a distance of four cubits and relays them. These are the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel declare that he may hold them in his hand and enter. R. 'Akiba says : He holds them in his garment and enters.

Raba said in the name of Rab Sheshet : The Halakah is not in accord with the above Baraita because it emanates from Bet Shammai; for if it emanated from Bet Hillel, since one is allowed to enter a regular privy [holding the Tefillin], how much more so a chance one!

It is quoted in objection: "What I have permitted thee in one place I have forbidden thee in another, [and this is an argument a fortiori which cannot be refuted"] — does this not refer to the Tefillin? It is quite right if thou sayest that the above Baraita emanates from Bet Hillel; for then I have permitted thee elsewhere [to enter] a regular privy [with Tefillin], but here I forbid thee [to enter] a chance privy ! On the other hand, if thou sayest that it emanates from Bet Shammai, they do not permit it in either case !

R. Hillel, the son of R. Samuel b. Nahmani, said : They correspond to the eighteen times the Divine Name [JHWH] is mentioned by David in the Psalm "Ascribe unto the Lord, O ye sons of might" (Ps.xxix). Rab Joseph said : They correspond to the eighteen times the Divine Name is mentioned in the Shema'. R. Tanhum said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi : They correspond to the eighteen vertebrae in the spinal column.

R. Levi said : According to R. Hillel, the son of R. Samuel b. Nahmani, it corresponds to "The God [el] of glory thundereth" (Ps. xxix. 3) ; according to Rab Joseph, it corresponds to "One" in the Shema; according to R. Tanhum in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, it corresponds to the small vertebra in the spinal column.

Rabina found Mar b. Rab Ashe throwing away the berries and eating the caper-buds. He said to him : What is thy opinion — like R. 'Akiba's who takes the lenient view? Then let the master act in accord with Bet Shammai who take a still more lenient view. For there is a Mishnaic teaching : In the case of the caper-bush. Bet Shammai say : It constitutes Kila'im in a vineyard ; but Bet Hillel say : It does not. Both, however, admit that it is subject to 'Orlah.

When R. 'Akiba is in opposition to R. Eliezer, we act according to his view; but when Bet Shammai are in opposition to Bet Hillel, [the opinion of the former] is not Mishnah.

Rab Shimi of Nehardea asked : But do the Rabbis differ from him in the case of other trees? For lo, there is a Mishnaic teaching : From what time must we cease cutting down the trees in the seventh year? Bet Shammai say : All trees, as soon as they produce fruit. Bet Hillel say : Carob trees when they begin to form chains, vines when they form globules, olive-trees when they bloom, and all other trees when they produce fruit.

Our Rabbis have taught: If they set before him oil and myrtle, Bet Shammai declare : He first says the benediction over the oil and then over the myrtle ; Bet Hillel declare : He first says the benediction over the myrtle and then over the oil. Rabban Gamaliel said : I will decide — Oil we use for its fragrance and for anointing, whereas we use the myrtle only for its fragrance and not for anointing. R. Johanan said : The Halakah is in accord with him who decided.

Rab Pappa visited the house of Rab Huna b. Rab Ika; they set before him oil and myrtle. He took and made the benediction first over the myrtle and then over the oil. Rab Huna said to him : Does not the master hold that the Halakah is in accord with the words of him who decided ? He replied : Thus said Raba : The Halakah is in accord with Bet Hillel. But it was not so, and he only did this to extricate himself.

Our Rabbis have taught : If oil and wine are set before him, Bet Shammai declare : He should take hold of the oil in his right hand and the wine in his left, say the benediction over the oil and then over the wine ; Bet Hillel declare : He should take hold of the wine in his right hand and the oil in his left, say the benediction over the wine and then over the oil. And he should rub the oil upon the head of the attendant ; but if the attendant be a disciple of the wise, he should rub it upon the wall, because it is a disgrace for a disciple of the wise to go into the street perfumed.

MISHNAH The following are the points of variance between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel in connection with the meal. Bet Shammai say : [On a Sabbath or Festival] one pronunces the benediction over the day and then over the wine ; but Bet Hillel say : He pronounces the benediction over the wine and afterwards over the day.

MISHNAH The following are the points of variance between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel in connection with the meal. Bet Shammai say : [On a Sabbath or Festival] one pronunces the benediction over the day and then over the wine ; but Bet Hillel say : He pronounces the benediction over the wine and afterwards over the day.

Bet Shammai say : We wash the hands and then fill the cup ; but Bet Hillel say: We fill the cup and then wash the hands.

Bet Shammai say : One wipes his hands with a napkin which he lays upon the table ; but Bet Hillel say : [He lays it] upon the bolster [of his couch].

Bet Shammai say: [After the meal] they clear up and then we wash the hands [prior to Grace] ; but Bet Hillel say : We wash the hands and then they clear up.

Bet Shammai say : [The order of benedictions is] light, food, spices and Habdalah; but Bet Hillel say : Light, spices, food and Habdalah.

Bet Shammai say : The wording is "...Who created the light of fire" ; but Bet Hillel say : It is "...Who createst the lights of the fire."

If one ate and forgot to say Grace, Bet Shammai declare he should return to his place and say it ; but Bet Hillel declare he may say it wherever [the omission] is remembered by him. And what length of time may elapse in which he can say Grace? A Sufficient time for the food in the stomach to be digested.

If wine is brought to them after the food and there is [only sufficient for] one cup, Bet Shammai declare he says the benediction over the wine and then over the food ; but Bet Hillel declare he says the benediction over the food and then over the wine.

GEMARA Our Rabbis have taught : The points of variance between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel in connection with the meal are : Bet Shammai say : [On a Sabbath or Festival] one pronounces the benediction over the day and then over the wine, because the day causes the wine to be brought and because he has already hallowed the day before the wine was brought.

But Bet Hillel say : One pronounces the benediction over the wine and then over the day, because the wine causes the Sanctification to be said. Another reason is : The benediction over the wine is constant but that over the day is not constant, and when we have that which is constant and not constant, the former takes precedence. The Halakah is in agreement with Bet Hillel.

But Bet Hillel say : One pronounces the benediction over the wine and then over the day, because the wine causes the Sanctification to be said. Another reason is : The benediction over the wine is constant but that over the day is not constant, and when we have that which is constant and not constant, the former takes precedence. The Halakah is in agreement with Bet Hillel.

Why is this other reason necessary ? Shouldest thou say that there [Bet Shammai offer] two reasons but here [Bet Hillel offer] only one, therefore here also we have two reasons. "The benediction over the wine is constant but that over the day is not constant, and when we have that which is constant and not constant, the former takes precedence.

The Halakah is in agreement with Bet Hillel." All this is obvious, for a Bat Kol had issued forth!

But how is it shown that this teaching emanates from Bet Shammai ; perhaps it is from Bet Hillel ?

That cannot enter thy mind ; because it states "light and afterwards spices," and from whom hast thou heard that opinion? Bet Shammai; for there is a teaching : R. Judah said : Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ that the benediction over food comes first and Habdalah afterwards ; in what do they differ ? About light and spices — Bet Shammai declare : Light and afterwards spices, whereas Bet Hillel declare : Spices and afterwards light.

That cannot enter thy mind ; because it states "light and afterwards spices," and from whom hast thou heard that opinion? Bet Shammai; for there is a teaching : R. Judah said : Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ that the benediction over food comes first and Habdalah afterwards ; in what do they differ ? About light and spices — Bet Shammai declare : Light and afterwards spices, whereas Bet Hillel declare : Spices and afterwards light.

But how is it shown that this teaching emanates from Bet Shammai as interpreted by R. Judah ; perhaps it is from Bet Hillel as interpreted by R. Meir?

That cannot enter thy mind; for it states here in our Mishnah: Bet Shammai say : [The order of benedictions is] light, food, spices and Habdalah ; but Bet Hillel say : Light, spices, food and Habdalah ; and there in the Baraita it states : "Should he have only one cup [of wine], he leaves it until after the meal and combines all [the benedictions] afterwards." Conclude therefore that it emanates from Bet Shammai as interpreted by R. Judah.

But Bet Hillel declare : We fill the cup and then wash the hands ; for if thou sayest that we wash the hands first, there is a fear lest the moisture on the hands may contract defilement on account of the cup [which might be ritually unclean] and in its turn defile the hands. But the cup can defile the hands!

Bet Hillel, on the other hand, hold that it is permitted to use a cup whose exterior has become defiled by a liquid, saying that spillings are not frequent ; but there is reason to fear lest the moisture on the hand contract defilement on account of the cup.

Why this other reason? Thus said Bet Hillel to Bet Shammai : According to you who maintain that it is forbidden to use a cup whose exterior has been defiled because of the fear of spillings, even so it is better [to wash the hands last] because the meal follows immediately on the washing of the hands.

But Bet Hillel say : [He lays it] upon the bolster ; for if thou sayest that [he lays it] upon the table, there is a fear lest the moisture on the napkin may contract defilement on account of the table and in its turn defile the food.

but Bet Hillel hold that it is permitted to use a table unclean in the second degree, because those who eat Terumah are careful.

Why this other reason ? Thus said Bet Hillel to Bet Shammai : Should you ask what difference is there that in the case of food we are concerned [about defilement] but in the case of the hands we have no concern ? Even so [our view] is better because the washing of the hands for non-holy food is not ordained by the Torah ; therefore it is preferable that the hands should be defiled, since that has no basis in the Torah, rather than food should be defiled, for which there is a basis in the Torah.

But Bet Hillel say : If the attendant is a disciple of the wise, he takes those pieces of bread which are of the size of an olive and leaves the pieces which are less than that size.

What is the point of difference between them ? Bet Hillel hold that it is forbidden to employ as an attendant one who is an 'Am ha'ares, whereas Bet Shammai hold that such may be employed.

R. Isaac b. R. Hannina said in the name of Rab Huna: Throughout our Chapter, the Halakah is in agreement with Bet Hillel except in this point where it is in agreement with Bet Shammai. R. Osha'ya, however, teaches the reverse, that here also the Halakah is in agreement with Bet Hillel.

R. Isaac b. R. Hannina said in the name of Rab Huna: Throughout our Chapter, the Halakah is in agreement with Bet Hillel except in this point where it is in agreement with Bet Shammai. R. Osha'ya, however, teaches the reverse, that here also the Halakah is in agreement with Bet Hillel.

Rab Huna b. Judah visited the house of Raba and noticed that he said the benediction over the spices first. He said to him : Note that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ on the question of the light ; for our Mishnah teaches : Bet Shammai say : [The order is] light, food, spices and Habdalah ; but Bet Hillel say : Light, spices, food and Habdalah!

Rab Huna b. Judah visited the house of Raba and noticed that he said the benediction over the spices first. He said to him : Note that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ on the question of the light ; for our Mishnah teaches : Bet Shammai say : [The order is] light, food, spices and Habdalah ; but Bet Hillel say : Light, spices, food and Habdalah!

Raba answered after him: These are the words of R. Meir; but R. Judah says: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ that [the benediction over] food comes first and Habdalah last. In what do they differ ? In [the order of] light and spices ; for Bet Shammai say : First [the benediction] over the light and then the spices, but Bet Hillel say : First over the spices and then the light.

Raba answered after him: These are the words of R. Meir; but R. Judah says: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ that [the benediction over] food comes first and Habdalah last. In what do they differ ? In [the order of] light and spices ; for Bet Shammai say : First [the benediction] over the light and then the spices, but Bet Hillel say : First over the spices and then the light.

And R. Johanan said : People act in agreement with the view of Bet Hillel as interpreted by R. Judah.

Raba said : Everybody agrees about bara' that it means "he created." In what do they differ? About the word bore' ; Bet Shammai hold that bore' means "he will create," but Bet Hillel hold that bore' has also the same meaning as bara'.

Rab Joseph quoted in objection : "I form the light and create [bore'] darkness" (Is. xlv. 7); "He formeth the mountains and createth [bore'] the wind" (Amos iv. 13); "He that created [bore'] the heavens and stretched them forth" (Is. xlii. 5)! But, said Rab Joseph, everybody agrees that bara' and bore' mean "he created." Wherein do they differ? About meor and meore ["light" and "lights"] for Bet Shammai hold there is only one light in fire, but Bet Hillel hold there are many. There is a teaching to the same effect : Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai : There are many lights in fire.

Rab Joseph quoted in objection : "I form the light and create [bore'] darkness" (Is. xlv. 7); "He formeth the mountains and createth [bore'] the wind" (Amos iv. 13); "He that created [bore'] the heavens and stretched them forth" (Is. xlii. 5)! But, said Rab Joseph, everybody agrees that bara' and bore' mean "he created." Wherein do they differ? About meor and meore ["light" and "lights"] for Bet Shammai hold there is only one light in fire, but Bet Hillel hold there are many. There is a teaching to the same effect : Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai : There are many lights in fire.

Our Rabbis have taught : If they were sitting in the House of Study [at the conclusion of the Sabbath] and light is brought to them, Bet Shammai declare that each one says the benediction for himself ; but Bet Hillel declare that one says the benediction for all, because it is said, "In the multitude of people is the King's glory" (Prov. xiv. 28).

It is quite right that Bet Hillel explain the reason [for their view] ; but what is the reason of Bet Shammai ? They hold that it will cause an interruption in the House of Study.

There is a teaching : Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai : According to your words, he who ate at the top of the Temple Mount and forgot and descended without saying Grace must return to the top and say it! Bet Shammai replied to Bet Hillel : According to your words, if one left a purse at the top of the Temple Mount, should he not go up to fetch it? For his own purpose he may go up ; how much more so for the honour of Heaven !

There is a teaching : Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai : According to your words, he who ate at the top of the Temple Mount and forgot and descended without saying Grace must return to the top and say it! Bet Shammai replied to Bet Hillel : According to your words, if one left a purse at the top of the Temple Mount, should he not go up to fetch it? For his own purpose he may go up ; how much more so for the honour of Heaven !

There were two disciples ; one acted in error according to the view of Bet Shammai and found a purse of gold, and the other acted deliberately according to the view of Bet Hillel and a lion devoured him.

Our Rabbis have taught : It happened that Hillel the Elder was returning from a journey and heard a cry of lamentation in the city and said, "I am confident that it is not in my house" ; and to him the Scriptural verse applies, "He shall not be afraid of evil tidings ; his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord" (Ps cxii. 7). Raba said : Whenever thou expoundest this verse, it is to be explained from the first clause to the second and from the second to the first. It is to be explained from the first clause to the second, thus : "He shall not be afraid of evil tidings." Why? "His heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord." It is to be explained from the second clause to the first, thus : "His heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord"; [therefore] "he shall not be afraid of evil tidings."

There is a teaching : Hillel the Elder says : When people collect [learning], do thou scatter ; when they scatter [learning], do thou collect. If thou seest a generation to which Torah is dear, do thou scatter ; as it is said, "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth" (Prov. xi. 24); but if thou seest a generation to which Torah is not dear, do thou collect ; as it is said, "It is time for the Lord to work ; they have made void Thy Law."

Another version: R. Abba said to him: Who holds this opinion? He [Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak] said to him: ‘Beth Shammai, and do not change from it’. (I.E. to Bais Hillel)

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak objected: How do we know that Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel are disputing about a small Sukkah? Perhaps their dispute concerns a large Sukkah, as for instance, where a man sat at the entrance of the Sukkah with his table inside the house, [with]Bais Shammai holding the opinion that we prohibit it lest he be drawn after the table,while Bais Hillel holds that we do not prohibit it?

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak objected: How do we know that Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel are disputing about a small Sukkah? Perhaps their dispute concerns a large Sukkah, as for instance, where a man sat at the entrance of the Sukkah with his table inside the house, [with]Bais Shammai holding the opinion that we prohibit it lest he be drawn after the table,while Bais Hillel holds that we do not prohibit it?

This, furthermore, may be deduced also [from the wording], for it was stated, ‘If his head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah but his table was within the house, Bais Shammai [says] it's pasul, and Bais Hillel [says] it's Kosher;' but if it is [as you say] it should read, [If the Sukkah can] contain, or cannot contain [his head, etc.].

While in another [Baraitha] it has been taught: Rabbi says: Any Sukkah which is not four amos square is invalid, while the Sages say: Even if it can contain only his head, and the greater part of his body it is kosher. Whereas of ‘his table’ there is no mention. Does a contradiction not arise between the two [Baraisas]? We must consequently infer therefrom that: One is from Bais Shammai, and one is from Bais Hillel.

Mar Zutra said: The wording of this Mishnah also proves it, since is says: ‘Bais Shammai declare it pasul, and Bais Hillel says it's Kosher’, and if it were [as you say] it should read Bais Shammai say’, He has not fulfilled his obligation while Bais Hillel say that he has.

Mar Zutra said: The wording of this Mishnah also proves it, since is says: ‘Bais Shammai declare it pasul, and Bais Hillel says it's Kosher’, and if it were [as you say] it should read Bais Shammai say’, He has not fulfilled his obligation while Bais Hillel say that he has.

The fact is that they differ on two [points]. They differ on a small Sukkah and they differ on a large Sukkah. But the text is defective and is to be read like this: ‘He whose head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah and his table within the house, Bais Shammai say, He has not fulfilled his obligation and Bais Hillel says: He has. and if it is [able to contain only his head and the major part of his body alone, Beth Shammai says it's pasul and Bais Hillel says it's Kosher.’

The fact is that they differ on two [points]. They differ on a small Sukkah and they differ on a large Sukkah. But the text is defective and is to be read like this: ‘He whose head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah and his table within the house, Bais Shammai say, He has not fulfilled his obligation and Bais Hillel says: He has. and if it is [able to contain only his head and the major part of his body alone, Beth Shammai says it's pasul and Bais Hillel says it's Kosher.’

‘Beth Shammai’? As we have learned: If his head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table was within the house, Beth Shammai declare it invalid, and Beth Hillel declare it valid

Mishnah: An old sukkah: Bet Shammai invalidates it and Bet Hillel validates it. What is an “old sukkah”? Any one which he made thirty days before the festival; but if he made it for the purpose of the festival, even at the beginning of the year, it is valid.

And Beth Hillel? They need that [verse] for the statement of R. Shesheth, R. Shesheth said in the name of R. Akiba, How do we know that the wood of the Sukkah is forbidden all the seven [days f the Festival]? From Scripture which states, "The festival of Sukkoth, seven days to the Lord."

And Bet Hillel? They need this verse to teach that a sukkah may be made in the intermediate days of the Festival.

But doesn't Bet Hillel agree with the statement of Rav Judah in the name of Rav for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: If a man made [tzitzit] from the hanging web or woof, or sewing threads, they are invalid; but if he made them from a tuft [sewn to a garment] they are valid.

Mishnah: A [wooden] roof that has no plastering: Rabbi Judah says: Bet Shammai say that he should loosen [the planks] and remove one from between each two. And Bet Hillel say he should either loosen [the planks] or remove one from between two. Rabbi Meir says, he removes one from between two, but he does not loosen [the planks].

GEMARA. It is well according to Bet Hillel; their reason is that ‘You shall make’, but not from that which is [already] made. If he loosens [the planks] he performs an action, and if he removes one from between two he performs an action. But what is the reason of Beth Shammai? If it is ‘You shall make’ but not from that which is [already] made, one act only should be sufficient; if it is because of a decree lest one use ordinary roofing, it should suffice if he removes one from between two?

This is what he (R. Meir) means: Bet Shammai and Beth Hillel did not dispute on this point.

The latter [mishnah] is what R. Judah said to R. Meir: ‘Why do you forbid planks? As a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roofing? But it is Beth Shammai only who hold this opinion while Beth Hillel do not decree [against planks]. To this R. Meir said that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not dispute this point at all.

The latter [mishnah] is what R. Judah said to R. Meir: ‘Why do you forbid planks? As a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roofing? But it is Beth Shammai only who hold this opinion while Beth Hillel do not decree [against planks]. To this R. Meir said that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not dispute this point at all.

Bet Shammai say: below, And Bet Hillel say: above. Rabbi Judah said: the partition could not be more effective than the wall between the two courtyards.

And Resh Lakish is consistent with his own view, since Resh Lakish said, May I be atonement for R. Hiyya and his sons. For in ancient times when the Torah was forgotten from Israel, Ezra came up from Babylon and established it. [Some of] it was again forgotten and Hillel the Babylonian came up and established it. Yet again was [some of] it forgotten, and R. Hiyya and his sons came up and established it And thus said R. Hiyya and his sons: R. Dosa and the Sages did not dispute about reed-mats of Usha,

If thick like a house. Our rabbis have taught, if it is thick like a house, even though the stars cannot be seen through it, it is valid. If the rays of the sun cannot be seen through it: Bet Shammai invalidates it, and Bet Hillel declares it valid.

Our Rabbis taught: Hillel had eighty disciples. Thirty of them were worthy to have the Divine Spirit resting upon them, as it did upon Moses our Master. Thirty of whom were worthy that the sun should stand still for them as it did for Joshua the son of Nun. And the remaining twenty were ordinary. The greatest of them was Yonatan ben Uziel, the lowest of them was Yochanan ben Zakkai.

Mishnah: 1) One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: i) Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. 2) Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? i) Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.

Mishnah: 1) One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: i) Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. 2) Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? i) Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.

Mishnah: 1) One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: i) Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. 2) Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? i) Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.

1) An etrog which is stolen or withered is invalid. 2) One from an asherah or a condemned city is invalid. 3) Of orlah or of unclean terumah—it is invalid. 4) Of clean terumah, he should not take it, but if he did take it, it is valid. 5) Of demai (doubtfully-tithed): a) Bet Shammai says it invalid, b) And Bet Hillel says it valid. 6) Of second tithe, it should not be taken [even] in Jerusalem, but if he took it, it is valid.

If it was demai. What is the reason of Beth Hillel? Because, if he wishes, he may declare his property to be ownerless and thereby become a poor person and he could benefit [from demai]-- now also we apply to it the expression "of yours." For we have learned: Poor men and quartered troops may be fed with demai.

And Bet Shammai: a poor man may not eat demai; as we have learned, Poor men and quartered troops may eat demai and R. Huna said: A tanna taught: Bet Shammai say that poor men and quartered troops may not be fed with demai, while Bet Hillel say that poor men and quartered troops may be fed with demai.

And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]? At “Give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm 118), at the beginning and at the end, and at “O Lord, deliver us” (118:25), the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: also at “O Lord, let us prosper.” Rabbi Akiva says: I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, and while all the people were waving their lulavs [at “O Lord, let us prosper”] they waved them only at “O Lord deliver us.”

It was taught: They said about Hillel the Elder that when he used to rejoice at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, he used to say: If I am here, everyone is here; but if I am not here, who is here?’ He also used to say: “To the place that I love, there my feet take me. If you will come into my House, I will come into your house. If you will not come to my House, I will not come to your house, as it is said, “In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21).

Shall we say that Rav and Rabbah b. Bar Hannah differ on the same principles as those on which Bet Shammai and Beth Hillel differed? For our rabbis have taught, These are the points of difference between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel with regard to [the ritual at] a meal: Beth Shammai says that one recites the blessing of the day and then the blessing over the wine, whereas Beth Hillel says that one recites the blessing over the wine and then the blessing of the day.