hillel

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “When may one start giving away rights? The House of Shammai say,” etc. “When may one start giving away rights?” Is the Mishnah so: “When may one start ceding rights? The House of Shammai say as long as it is daylight, but the House of Hillel say, when it gets dark”? So is the Mishnah: The House of (Shammai) [Hillel] say, when it gets dark; because otherwise it would be of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the strictures of the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “When may one start giving away rights? The House of Shammai say,” etc. “When may one start giving away rights?” Is the Mishnah so: “When may one start ceding rights? The House of Shammai say as long as it is daylight, but the House of Hillel say, when it gets dark”? So is the Mishnah: The House of (Shammai) [Hillel] say, when it gets dark; because otherwise it would be of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the strictures of the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “When may one start giving away rights? The House of Shammai say,” etc. “When may one start giving away rights?” Is the Mishnah so: “When may one start ceding rights? The House of Shammai say as long as it is daylight, but the House of Hillel say, when it gets dark”? So is the Mishnah: The House of (Shammai) [Hillel] say, when it gets dark; because otherwise it would be of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the strictures of the House of Hillel.

It was stated: “If two people were partners in a courtyard and one of them died, and the house fell as inheritance to an outside person. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: This is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since he dies there is no greater cession of rights than this. “If an outside person owned a house in the courtyard with them when he died and the house fell as inheritance to a dweller in the courtyard. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden.” Still this is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. May one cede rights after dark? Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi went up to Ḥammat Gader. They asked Rebbi Ḥama bar Joseph and he permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan heard them and said, you did the correct thing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, you acted incorrectly. Do they disagree? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you moved. Rebbi Abba said, they disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased and moved. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you leased and that you moved.

It was stated: “If two people were partners in a courtyard and one of them died, and the house fell as inheritance to an outside person. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: This is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since he dies there is no greater cession of rights than this. “If an outside person owned a house in the courtyard with them when he died and the house fell as inheritance to a dweller in the courtyard. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden.” Still this is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. May one cede rights after dark? Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi went up to Ḥammat Gader. They asked Rebbi Ḥama bar Joseph and he permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan heard them and said, you did the correct thing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, you acted incorrectly. Do they disagree? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you moved. Rebbi Abba said, they disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased and moved. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you leased and that you moved.

MISHNAH: Five groups who rested in one big hall during the Sabbath, the House of Shammai say, a separate eruv for each of them, but the House of Hillel say, one eruv for all of them; however they agree that if some of them stayed for the Sabbath in separate rooms or on a second floor that each group needs a separate eruv.

A house where they deposited the eruv. The mother of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa had died when Rebbi Yasa said to Rebbi Abbahu, state it, and he stated: The House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. Rebbi Hamnuna said, the house in which the eruv is deposited does not need anything. Rebbi Ḥasdai said, he is made like a partner. Rebbi Hamnuna told him, the words of the rabbis do not let you, as they disagreed: An alley in which on one side dwelt a Gentile and on the other a Jew, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: even if they made an eruv through doors the Gentile prohibits it for them. Abba bar Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even if they made the eruv through windows the Gentile does not prohibit for them. If you are saying that he is like a partner, he should forbid. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the people of the alley deposited the eruv in two places, if because the space was not enough, it is permitted, if in order to split the eruv it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: From a cistern between two courtyards one may not draw water on the Sabbath unless one made for it a partition ten hand-breadths high, either below or inside its rim. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, the House of Shammai say below but the House of Hillel say above. Rebbi Jehudah says, a partition should not be more than the wall in between them.

“When has this been said? For used ones, but for new ones he is free.” Why? Old ones are checked, new ones are not checked. It was stated: One has to check tefillin once every twelve months, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, they do not need checking. Hillel the Elder said, these are from my maternal grandfather. If he found two or three heaps, he checks the first pair of the first bundle; the same with the second or the third. Isaac ben Eleazar asked: Does one create a presumption for all of them or is each one of them for itself? If you are saying that one creates a presumption for all of them, he checks the first pair of the first heap. If you are saying that each one creates a presumption for itself, he checks three pairs from each heap.

MISHNAH: At nightfall of the Fourteenth one checks leavened matter by candle light. A place into which no leavened matter is introduced does not need checking. And where did they say two rows in the cellar? A place where one introduces leavened matter. The House of Shammai are saying two rows in the front of the entire cellar, but the House of Hillel are saying the outermost two rows which are the uppermost.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha? Before Usha there was no burning for their words. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands.] Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning. The following are the six doubts: “On the doubt of a bet happeras, on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar, on the doubt of spittle, on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine, on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity on these one burns heave.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha? Before Usha there was no burning for their words. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands.] Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning. The following are the six doubts: “On the doubt of a bet happeras, on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar, on the doubt of spittle, on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine, on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity on these one burns heave.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha? Before Usha there was no burning for their words. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands.] Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning. The following are the six doubts: “On the doubt of a bet happeras, on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar, on the doubt of spittle, on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine, on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity on these one burns heave.

HALAKHAH: 7: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan there one burns biblical impurity with biblical impurity. He comes to add biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. In the opinion of Bar Qappara there one burns rabbinical impurity with biblical impurity. Here, biblical disqualification with biblical impurity only comes to diminish. Explain it if he was ṭevul yom from a bet happeras which is rabbinical. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel.

One may fulfill his obligation with mazzah thick up to one hand-width like the shew bread. One may fulfill his obligation with raw mazzah if only it does not draw fibers when broken. An old mazzah is subject of a disagreement between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; since he did not make it for Passover it is certain that he did not care to make it accurately. One may fulfill his obligation with seriqin both with figures or without figures, even though they said, one does not make painted seriqin on Passover.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: In a pot in which one cooked with water one may cook the same kind only after Passover. Therefore another kind is permitted although only after three dishes. If it becomes insignificant by other kinds, should it not become insignificant also by its own kind? A kind awakes its own kind to prohibit. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Abbahu ordered the millers not to put boxes one on top of the other lest they heated up and became leavened. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos went to the millers. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun milled himself as guest. Rebbi Abun instructed the millers to fill a quartarius of water in the modii and moisten it four times. Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, grasses are permitted, moistened it is forbidden, but the other one switches. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, even the one who permits grasses, if he collected them in the afternoon. Why? For dew faded away from it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about pure heave that it is forbidden to burn it, and about impure heave that one is permitted to burn it; about what did they disagree? About the suspended one, about which the House of Shammai say, one may not burn it, but the House of Hillel say, one burns it. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel: Do you not say that the pure one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe a Cohen was keeping the Sabbath within the domain and he might come and eat in on the Sabbath, so also the suspended one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe Elijah was keeping the Sabbath on Mount Carmel and he might come and testify on the Sabbath that it is pure. The House of Hillel told them, we are sure that Elijah will come neither on a Sabbath nor on a holiday.”

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about pure heave that it is forbidden to burn it, and about impure heave that one is permitted to burn it; about what did they disagree? About the suspended one, about which the House of Shammai say, one may not burn it, but the House of Hillel say, one burns it. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel: Do you not say that the pure one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe a Cohen was keeping the Sabbath within the domain and he might come and eat in on the Sabbath, so also the suspended one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe Elijah was keeping the Sabbath on Mount Carmel and he might come and testify on the Sabbath that it is pure. The House of Hillel told them, we are sure that Elijah will come neither on a Sabbath nor on a holiday.”

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about pure heave that it is forbidden to burn it, and about impure heave that one is permitted to burn it; about what did they disagree? About the suspended one, about which the House of Shammai say, one may not burn it, but the House of Hillel say, one burns it. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel: Do you not say that the pure one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe a Cohen was keeping the Sabbath within the domain and he might come and eat in on the Sabbath, so also the suspended one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe Elijah was keeping the Sabbath on Mount Carmel and he might come and testify on the Sabbath that it is pure. The House of Hillel told them, we are sure that Elijah will come neither on a Sabbath nor on a holiday.”

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about pure heave that it is forbidden to burn it, and about impure heave that one is permitted to burn it; about what did they disagree? About the suspended one, about which the House of Shammai say, one may not burn it, but the House of Hillel say, one burns it. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel: Do you not say that the pure one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe a Cohen was keeping the Sabbath within the domain and he might come and eat in on the Sabbath, so also the suspended one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe Elijah was keeping the Sabbath on Mount Carmel and he might come and testify on the Sabbath that it is pure. The House of Hillel told them, we are sure that Elijah will come neither on a Sabbath nor on a holiday.”

It happened that Jehudah and Hillel, Rabban Gamliel’s sons, went to bathe in the bathhouse of Kabul. They said to them, it is not our usage that two brothers should be bathing together. They did not want to tell them, so it is permitted, but entered one after the other. Also they went to promenade in gilded bark sandals at Biro in the night of the Sabbath. They said to them, it is not our usage to promenade in gilded bark sandals on the Sabbath. They did not want to tell them, so it is permitted, but sent them by their slaves.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is it not forbidden because of “do not split into sects”? He said to him, in case these follow the House of Shammai and those the House of Hillel. But between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel does practice not follow the House of Hillel? He said to him, in case these follow Rebbi Meïr and those follow Rebbi Yose. But between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, does practice not follow Rebbi Yose? He answered him, there are two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Meïr and two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Yose. He said to him, is there not New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. He told him, there is a difference since if he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation. But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth? He told him, he who edited the Mishnah based it on Scripture: Family and family, country and country, and town and town.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is it not forbidden because of “do not split into sects”? He said to him, in case these follow the House of Shammai and those the House of Hillel. But between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel does practice not follow the House of Hillel? He said to him, in case these follow Rebbi Meïr and those follow Rebbi Yose. But between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, does practice not follow Rebbi Yose? He answered him, there are two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Meïr and two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Yose. He said to him, is there not New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. He told him, there is a difference since if he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation. But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth? He told him, he who edited the Mishnah based it on Scripture: Family and family, country and country, and town and town.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is it not forbidden because of “do not split into sects”? He said to him, in case these follow the House of Shammai and those the House of Hillel. But between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel does practice not follow the House of Hillel? He said to him, in case these follow Rebbi Meïr and those follow Rebbi Yose. But between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, does practice not follow Rebbi Yose? He answered him, there are two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Meïr and two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Yose. He said to him, is there not New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. He told him, there is a difference since if he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation. But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth? He told him, he who edited the Mishnah based it on Scripture: Family and family, country and country, and town and town.

MISHNAH: Also the Sages say, in Judea one did work on Passover Eve until noon, but in Galilee one did not work at all. In the night, the House of Shammai forbid, but the House of Hillel permit until sunrise.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Any teaching which has no pedigree is no teaching. There, we have stated: “If he rode on it, leaned on it, hung on it, used it to cross a river, folded the bridle on it, put his toga on it, it is disqualified. [But if he tied it with the bridle, made it a shoe lest it slip, put his toga on it because of flies, it is qualified. This is the principle: Anything for its needs, it is qualified. For any other need, it is disqualified.]” This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that that if he hung on it a knife to slaughter it it remains qualified. That learns from this, that any action which is done for sancta is not work. Why did they not allow it to them by means of walls of people? It must follow Rebbi Immi. Even if you are saying following Rebbi Simon, just as they could not remember this so they did not remember that. Rebbi Abun said, but it is impossible that in two Sabbatical periods there should be no 14th which falls on the Sabbath! How could they not have remembered? To confer greatness on Hillel.

Because of three questions Hillel immigrated from Babylonia. He is pure. I could think that he was rid of it and may take leave, the verse says, the Cohen shall declare him pure. If the Cohen shall declare him pure then I could think that if the Cohen declared him pure while he was impure that he was pure, the verse says, he is pure and the Cohen shall declare him pure. For this Hillel immigrated from Babylonia.

Because of three questions Hillel immigrated from Babylonia. He is pure. I could think that he was rid of it and may take leave, the verse says, the Cohen shall declare him pure. If the Cohen shall declare him pure then I could think that if the Cohen declared him pure while he was impure that he was pure, the verse says, he is pure and the Cohen shall declare him pure. For this Hillel immigrated from Babylonia.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, for whom is this needed? For Rebbi Meïr. Does Rebbi Eleazar parallel Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish requires that his action be meritorious, does Rebbi Eleazar require that his action be meritorious? If you are saying that there is a difference, since this one has a defect, and a defective animal is not apt to be changed, also a calf is not apt to be changed, and Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eleazar were of Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, it would be understandable, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a defective animals is not apt to be changed, but a calf is apt to be changed, because (it was a problem for Hillel) [it is needed for the slain]. Therefore {if it was torn} in the open, he is liable.

MISHNAH: The deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening but not [other] sancta. He who hears about a death or for whom bones were collected immerses himself and eats sancta. A proselyte who converted on Passover eve, the House of Shammai say that he immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening, but the House of Hillel say that he who separates from the prepuce is like one who separates from a grave.

It was stated: If a person transports a casket from place to place the rules of collecting bones do not apply. Rebbi Aḥa said, that only is about a stone sarcophagus. But to a wooden casket the rules of collecting bones do apply. Rebbi Yose said, even to a wooden casket the rules of collecting bones do not apply. When is there collecting bones? If one transports them in a striped garment from place to place. Rebbi Haggai in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Collecting bones [is] what it means. And it was stated thus: In collecting bones one collects them bone by bone after the flesh has decomposed. It was stated: There is no information about collecting bones. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, that is if he was informed the next day. But on the day itself there is information about collecting bones. Is there a minimum for collecting bones? Nikomachos stated before Rebbi Zeˋira: There is no minimum about collecting bones. About this, Rebbi Mana instructed Rebbi Hillel from Kifra to tear and mourn following Rebbi Aḥa but not to defile himself following Rebbi Yose. It was stated: When collecting bones one does not recite lamentations and dirges; one recites neither the blessings for mourners nor the consolations for mourners. These are blessings for mourners: what is recited in the synagogue. These are consolations of mourners, what is said in the row. It was stated: But one says words. What are words? The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, eulogies.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? You and your captives. Since you could not be impure before you entered the covenant, also your captives cannot be impure before they enter the covenant. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? You and your captives. Since you need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}, so your captives need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}. But it is not logically consistent, since Rav Ḥiyya bar Joseph, Giddul bar Benjamin said in the name of Rav: The House of Hillel agree that if he transgressed and poured the blood, that it is accepted.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? You and your captives. Since you could not be impure before you entered the covenant, also your captives cannot be impure before they enter the covenant. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? You and your captives. Since you need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}, so your captives need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}. But it is not logically consistent, since Rav Ḥiyya bar Joseph, Giddul bar Benjamin said in the name of Rav: The House of Hillel agree that if he transgressed and poured the blood, that it is accepted.

MISHNAH: One mixes him the first cup. The House of Shammai say, he pronounces the benediction of the day and after that he pronounces the benediction over the wine. But the House of Hillel say, he pronounces the benediction over the wine and after that he pronounces the benediction of the day.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of the House of Shammai? The Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served; he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day before the wine was served. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? The wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited. Another explanation: The wine is frequent, Sanctification is less frequent.

Rebbi Yose said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah, the wine comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that the Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served? But here, Havdalah does {not} cause the wine to be served; wine therefore has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine is frequent, Sanctification of the Day is less frequent? Also here, wine is frequent and Havdalah is less frequent: the wine has precedence. Rebbi Mana said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah, Havdalah comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day before the wine came? Also here, since he is obligated for Havdalah before the wine came, Havdalah has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited? But here, the wine does {not} cause Havdalah to be recited: Havdalah has precedence.

Rebbi Yose said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah, the wine comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that the Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served? But here, Havdalah does {not} cause the wine to be served; wine therefore has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine is frequent, Sanctification of the Day is less frequent? Also here, wine is frequent and Havdalah is less frequent: the wine has precedence. Rebbi Mana said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah, Havdalah comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day before the wine came? Also here, since he is obligated for Havdalah before the wine came, Havdalah has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited? But here, the wine does {not} cause Havdalah to be recited: Havdalah has precedence.

MISHNAH: How far does he say? The House of Shammai say, up to a happy mother of children. But the House of Hillel are saying, up to the pebble into a source of water, and he finishes with “redemption.” Rebbi Tarphon says, “Who freed us and freed our forefathers from Egypt and let us reach this night”, and does not seal. Rebbi Aqiba says, “so Eternal, our God, let us reach other festivals coming towards us in peace, happy in the rebuilding of Your city, enjoying Your service, and the renewal of Your Temple. There may we eat from the Pesaḥ and well-being offerings whose blood will reach to the wall of Your altar for pleasure and we shall thank You for our redemption. Praise to You, Eternal, Who redeems Israel.”

“The House of Shammai said to them, did Israel leave Egypt that he should mention the Exodus from Egypt? The House of Hillel answered them, even if he would wait until the cock crows, they did not reach half the redemption,” since they left only at noontime, as it is said, in the middle of this day did the Eternal lead out the Children of Israel, etc. But since one started fulfilling the obligation, one tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Abunah bar Sehora objected, did he not already mention it for the cup?

It was stated, “a full gulp.” Does this disagree? A full gulp, what is possible as one gulp. It was stated in the name of the House of Shammai, a full gulp is equivalent to a quartarius. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana, why was this not stated as one of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and restrictions of the House of Hillel? He told him, because of the gulp of Ben Avatiah which contained more than a quartarius.

A positive commandment, even if he did not repent. A prohibition? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, only if he repented. If one said, “the elevation offering does not atone,” does the elevation offering not atone? It atones even against his will. But if he said, “it is impossible that the elevation offering atone for me,” it does not atone against his will. If one said, “the Day of Atonement does not atone,” It atones. “I cannot accept that it atone for me,” it atones against his will. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Hillel said, it is not up to a person to tell the King, “you are no king.”

What text implies this? “For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, all ears that touch the ground are for the poor.” Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai. Rebbi Yose said to him: We understand that according to everybody, this is a fine. Following the House of Hillel, the poor give tithes and eat.

MISHNAH: If somebody collects coins and says, “these are for my sheqel,” the House of Shammai say, the excess is gift, but the House of Hillel say, the excess is profane. “That I shall take from these for my sheqel,” they agree that the excess is profane. “These are for a purification offering,” they agree that the excess is gift, “that I shall take from these for a purification offering,” they agree that the excess is profane. Rebbi Simeon said, what is the difference between sheqalim and a purification offering? It is that sheqalim have a fixed value and a purification offering has no fixed value. Rebbi Jehudah said, sheqalim also have no fixed value. When Israel returned from the Babylonian exile they gave as Temple tax darics, they continued to give sela`im, they continued to give minted coins, they wanted to give denars. Rebbi Simeon said, anyhow everybody gave the same, but for a purification offering, one brings for a tetradrachma, another for two, and still another for three.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody collects coins,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these [are for my sheqel ], everybody agrees that the excess is gift. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these, everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai, [as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between sheqalim and purification offerings? It is that sheqalim are a fixed sum but purification offerings have no fixed price.” Where do we hold? If about one who says, “that I shall bring my sheqel from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. If about one who says, “that I shall bring my purification offering from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is gift. But we must deal with the case of one who says “these sheqalim”, since from the Torah they are a fixed amount the excess is profane, “purification offerings”, since their value is not a fixed amount from the Torah the excess is gift. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of sheqalim is profane”? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of the tenth of an ephah” [is profane]? Still he explains it if he collects small change following the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody collects coins,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these [are for my sheqel ], everybody agrees that the excess is gift. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these, everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai, [as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between sheqalim and purification offerings? It is that sheqalim are a fixed sum but purification offerings have no fixed price.” Where do we hold? If about one who says, “that I shall bring my sheqel from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. If about one who says, “that I shall bring my purification offering from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is gift. But we must deal with the case of one who says “these sheqalim”, since from the Torah they are a fixed amount the excess is profane, “purification offerings”, since their value is not a fixed amount from the Torah the excess is gift. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of sheqalim is profane”? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of the tenth of an ephah” [is profane]? Still he explains it if he collects small change following the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody collects coins,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these [are for my sheqel ], everybody agrees that the excess is gift. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these, everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai, [as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between sheqalim and purification offerings? It is that sheqalim are a fixed sum but purification offerings have no fixed price.” Where do we hold? If about one who says, “that I shall bring my sheqel from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. If about one who says, “that I shall bring my purification offering from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is gift. But we must deal with the case of one who says “these sheqalim”, since from the Torah they are a fixed amount the excess is profane, “purification offerings”, since their value is not a fixed amount from the Torah the excess is gift. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of sheqalim is profane”? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of the tenth of an ephah” [is profane]? Still he explains it if he collects small change following the House of Hillel.

MISHNAH: Flesh of most holy sacrifices which became impure either by original impurity or by derivative impurity, whether inside or outside, the House of Shammai are saying that everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity. The House of Hillel are saying that everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity. Rebbi Eliezer says, what became impure by original impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned outside. But what became impure by derivative impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned inside. Rebbi Aqiba said, the place of its impurity is the place of its burning.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original] impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original] impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original] impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original] impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai disqualify an old sukkah, but the House of Hillel qualify it. What is an old sukkah? Any which he made thirty days before the holiday. But if he made it for the holiday it is qualified even from the beginning of the year.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai disqualify an old sukkah, but the House of Hillel qualify it.” It was stated: One has to renew something in it. The colleagues say, one hand-breadth; Rebbi Yose says, anything. He who says anything, but along the entire length. Is it the same with an old mazzah? Is an old mazzah a disagreement between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; since he did not make it for Passover it is certain that he was not careful about it. A sukkah of shepherds, a sukkah of potters is qualified. A sukkah of Samaritans, if it is made according to the rules is qualified, not according to the rules is disqualified.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai disqualify an old sukkah, but the House of Hillel qualify it.” It was stated: One has to renew something in it. The colleagues say, one hand-breadth; Rebbi Yose says, anything. He who says anything, but along the entire length. Is it the same with an old mazzah? Is an old mazzah a disagreement between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; since he did not make it for Passover it is certain that he was not careful about it. A sukkah of shepherds, a sukkah of potters is qualified. A sukkah of Samaritans, if it is made according to the rules is qualified, not according to the rules is disqualified.

MISHNAH: A roof without insulation, Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of the House of Hillel either he moves or he lifts one in the middle, but the House of Shammai say, he moves and lifts one in the middle. Rebbi Meïr says, he lifts one in the middle and does not need to move.

MISHNAH: If a person’s head and most of his body was in the sukkah but his table inside the house, the House of Shammai declare it disqualified but the House of Hillel qualified. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran and found him with his head and most of his body in the sukkah but his table inside the house. The House of Shammai answered them, is this a proof? They said to him, if you are used to do this, you never in your life did fulfill the obligation of sukkah.

MISHNAH: If a person’s head and most of his body was in the sukkah but his table inside the house, the House of Shammai declare it disqualified but the House of Hillel qualified. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran and found him with his head and most of his body in the sukkah but his table inside the house. The House of Shammai answered them, is this a proof? They said to him, if you are used to do this, you never in your life did fulfill the obligation of sukkah.

MISHNAH: If a person’s head and most of his body was in the sukkah but his table inside the house, the House of Shammai declare it disqualified but the House of Hillel qualified. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran and found him with his head and most of his body in the sukkah but his table inside the house. The House of Shammai answered them, is this a proof? They said to him, if you are used to do this, you never in your life did fulfill the obligation of sukkah.

Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded“; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi. We never find the House of (Hillel) [Shammai] conceding to the House of (Shammai) [Hillel] except in this matter. Rebbi Ḥunah in the name of Rav Abbaia: The Mishnah says so. “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Idi said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated this before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned,” and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another that it should be lifted, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others agree with us. Rebbi Abun says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure {heave}, which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure {heave} which is {prohibited} as positive commandment for Cohanim.

Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded“; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi. We never find the House of (Hillel) [Shammai] conceding to the House of (Shammai) [Hillel] except in this matter. Rebbi Ḥunah in the name of Rav Abbaia: The Mishnah says so. “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Idi said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated this before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned,” and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another that it should be lifted, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others agree with us. Rebbi Abun says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure {heave}, which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure {heave} which is {prohibited} as positive commandment for Cohanim.

Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded“; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi. We never find the House of (Hillel) [Shammai] conceding to the House of (Shammai) [Hillel] except in this matter. Rebbi Ḥunah in the name of Rav Abbaia: The Mishnah says so. “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Idi said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated this before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned,” and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another that it should be lifted, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others agree with us. Rebbi Abun says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure {heave}, which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure {heave} which is {prohibited} as positive commandment for Cohanim.

Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded“; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi. We never find the House of (Hillel) [Shammai] conceding to the House of (Shammai) [Hillel] except in this matter. Rebbi Ḥunah in the name of Rav Abbaia: The Mishnah says so. “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Idi said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated this before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned,” and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another that it should be lifted, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others agree with us. Rebbi Abun says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure {heave}, which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure {heave} which is {prohibited} as positive commandment for Cohanim.

Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded“; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi. We never find the House of (Hillel) [Shammai] conceding to the House of (Shammai) [Hillel] except in this matter. Rebbi Ḥunah in the name of Rav Abbaia: The Mishnah says so. “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Idi said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated this before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned,” and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another that it should be lifted, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others agree with us. Rebbi Abun says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure {heave}, which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure {heave} which is {prohibited} as positive commandment for Cohanim.

Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded“; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi. We never find the House of (Hillel) [Shammai] conceding to the House of (Shammai) [Hillel] except in this matter. Rebbi Ḥunah in the name of Rav Abbaia: The Mishnah says so. “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Idi said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated this before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned,” and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another that it should be lifted, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others agree with us. Rebbi Abun says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure {heave}, which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure {heave} which is {prohibited} as positive commandment for Cohanim.

Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded“; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi. We never find the House of (Hillel) [Shammai] conceding to the House of (Shammai) [Hillel] except in this matter. Rebbi Ḥunah in the name of Rav Abbaia: The Mishnah says so. “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Idi said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated this before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned,” and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another that it should be lifted, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others agree with us. Rebbi Abun says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure {heave}, which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure {heave} which is {prohibited} as positive commandment for Cohanim.

From where did the House of Hillel merit that practice should be fixed following their words? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, because they quoted the words of the House of Shammai before their own words. Not only that, but if they were convinced by the words of the House of Shammai they changed their opinions. Rebbi Simon bar Zeved objected before Rebbi Ila: Or could we say that the Tanna saw that they were older and quoted them first? But did we not state, “it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran”? We could have said, our elders and your elders. Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Practice follows the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: Since the House of Shammai dismissed the House of Hillel, this implies that practice follows their words.

From where did the House of Hillel merit that practice should be fixed following their words? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, because they quoted the words of the House of Shammai before their own words. Not only that, but if they were convinced by the words of the House of Shammai they changed their opinions. Rebbi Simon bar Zeved objected before Rebbi Ila: Or could we say that the Tanna saw that they were older and quoted them first? But did we not state, “it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran”? We could have said, our elders and your elders. Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Practice follows the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: Since the House of Shammai dismissed the House of Hillel, this implies that practice follows their words.

From where did the House of Hillel merit that practice should be fixed following their words? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, because they quoted the words of the House of Shammai before their own words. Not only that, but if they were convinced by the words of the House of Shammai they changed their opinions. Rebbi Simon bar Zeved objected before Rebbi Ila: Or could we say that the Tanna saw that they were older and quoted them first? But did we not state, “it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran”? We could have said, our elders and your elders. Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Practice follows the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: Since the House of Shammai dismissed the House of Hillel, this implies that practice follows their words.

MISHNAH: A robbed or dried up etrog is disqualified. Of an ashera or a seduced city, it is disqualified. Of `orlah, it is disqualified. Of impure heave, it is disqualified; of pure one should not take but if he took it is qualified. Of demay, the House of Shammai disqualify but the House of Hillel qualify; of Second Tithe in Jerusalem one should not take but if he took it is qualified.

Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked, is our Mishnah not following the House of Shammai? As we have stated, “of demay, the House of Shammai disqualify but the House of Hillel qualify. Of Second Tithe in Jerusalem one should not take but if he took it is valid.”

MISHNAH: One ties the lulav only with its own kind, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr says, even with a string. Rebbi Meïr said, it happened that the people of Jerusalem did tie their lulavim with golden jewels. They told him, under these they tied it with its own kind. Where did they move? At thank the Eternal beginning and end, and also at please, Eternal, please save, following the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say, also at please, Eternal, please give success. Rebbi Aqiba said, I was watching Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Joshua, when all the people were shaking their lulavim but they moved them only at please, Eternal, please save. If somebody returns from a trip where he had no lulav, when he enters his house he can take it at his table. If he did not take it in the morning he may take it in the afternoon since the entire day is qualified for the lulav.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked, does the Mishnah contradict Rebbi Dosa? For “Rebbi Dosa said, in the morning a person has to say, everything which the poor will collect today between the sheaves is ownerless property. Rebbi Jehudah says, in the evening. But the Sages say, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, because we are not responsible for cheaters.” There you are saying, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, but here you are saying, a declaration of abandonment under duress is abandonment. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he declares ownerless by his own will, here he declares ownerless against his own will. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, this is correct. You have to know that this is so since already his replacement is in his hand.

HALAKHAH: “The pious ones and people of good deeds.” Some of them were saying, blessed be my youth which did not shame my old age; these are the people of good deeds. But others were saying, blessed be my old age which atoned for my youth. Both of these were saying, blessed be who never sinned; and he who sinned may be forgiven. Hillel the Elder, if he saw them wantonly transgressing said to them, even though I am here, who is here? Does He need acclamations? Is it not written, thousands upon thousands serve Him, and myriads of myriads stand before Him? If he saw them acting correctly he was saying, if I am not here who is here? Even though there are many acclaims before Him, the acclaim of Israel is beloved more than anything else. What is the reason? And the pleasantness of the songs of Israel; enthroned on the praises of Israel.

“The incoming ones distribute in the North and the outgoing in the South.” Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, to honor the incoming ones. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not for this reason but because we have stated: “All who enter the Temple Mount enter to the right, and turn, and leave to the left.”

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is written, do not investigate between good or bad. If he transgressed and investigated, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? Here the Torah permitted to dedicate deficient animals. There, we have stated: “On the eighth day he brings three animals, purification sacrifice, reparation sacrifice, and elevation sacrifice. But the poor man brought birds as reparation and elevation offerings.” Is not the bird as reparation offering deficient in time next to the reparation offering? Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: It is written, on the eighth he shall bring. If he transgressed and did not bring, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? As Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all seven days one does not tell him, bring. Afterwards one tells him, bring. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Everybody plans and brings his sacrifices on the holiday. One understands a nazir. Is the sufferer from skin disease not missing atonement? And did we not state, Hallel and joy eight? Explain it for a nazir. Rebbi Sachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi asked, the beginning one explains for a nazir and the end for a sufferer from skin disease? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, was this not already objected there? And Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat. Here also, Cohanim and the goat.

MISHNAH: On the first of Tishre is New Year for years, and remission of debts, and Jubilee periods, and for planting, and vegetables On the first of Shevaṭ is New Year for trees following the House of Shammai; the House of Hillel say, on the fifteenth of it.

From where for remission of debts? At the end of seven years make remission of debts. Since years are counted from Tishre, also remission of debts is counted from Tishre. For Jubilee periods from where? You shall count for yourselves seven Sabbatical periods of year, seven years seven times. Since years and Sabbaticals are counted from Tishre, also Jubilee periods are counted from Tishre. They objected, is it not written, you shall sound the shofar of cheer in the seventh month, etc. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: So that all months of the year be equal and no month be divided into two years. They objected, did we not state, “on the first of Shevaṭ is New Year for trees following the House of Shammai; the House of Hillel say, on the fifteenth of it”? Then not all months of the year are equal and a month is divided into two years.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia. [One said,] already most of the rains of the entire year have passed, and also most of the season is gone. But the other one says, up to then they live from the rains of the past year, from then on they live from the water of the next year. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia said, already most of the rains of the entire year have passed, and also most of the season is gone, it follows that Rebbi Ze`ira said, up to then they live from the rains of the past year, from then on they live from the water of the next year. “It happened that Rebbi Aqiba picked an etrog and observed for it the stringencies of the House of Shammai and those of the House of Hillel.” Why about a citron and not about any tree? It was stated “the stringencies of Rabban Gamliel and those of Rebbi Eliezer.” But do Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer not refer to the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it budded before the 15th of Shevaṭ` of the second year, and the third year came. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel it is subject to tithe of the poor; in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer it is subject to second tithe. How did he handle this? He gave a name to the tithe in it, redeemed it, and gave it to the poor.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia. [One said,] already most of the rains of the entire year have passed, and also most of the season is gone. But the other one says, up to then they live from the rains of the past year, from then on they live from the water of the next year. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia said, already most of the rains of the entire year have passed, and also most of the season is gone, it follows that Rebbi Ze`ira said, up to then they live from the rains of the past year, from then on they live from the water of the next year. “It happened that Rebbi Aqiba picked an etrog and observed for it the stringencies of the House of Shammai and those of the House of Hillel.” Why about a citron and not about any tree? It was stated “the stringencies of Rabban Gamliel and those of Rebbi Eliezer.” But do Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer not refer to the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it budded before the 15th of Shevaṭ` of the second year, and the third year came. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel it is subject to tithe of the poor; in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer it is subject to second tithe. How did he handle this? He gave a name to the tithe in it, redeemed it, and gave it to the poor.

MISHNAH: An egg was laid on a holiday. The House of Shammay say that it may be eaten, but the House of Hillel say that it may not be eaten.

HALAKHAH: “An egg was laid on a holiday,” etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? It is prepared in its mother’s body. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? It is like muqṣeh which dried without him realizing it, and is muqṣeh which dried without him realizing it not forbidden? But was it not stated, “if one slaughters a chicken and found eggs inside it, even if they are complete they are permitted”? Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana. One said, its taste when eaten from its inside is not comparable to its taste when eaten from the outside. But the other said, it is not completed for a chick until it comes outside. What are they with milk? Let us say, if they are connected to blood vessels they are forbidden, otherwise permitted.

“Everybody agrees that an egg of which a major part was laid before the start of the holiday may be eaten on the holiday”. Where do they disagree? If a minor part came out, where the House of Shammai say that it may be eaten, but the House of Hillel say that it may not be eaten. “ Just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden to be moved. If one was mixed with a hundred or a thousand, they are all forbidden”. How? Following him who said, if the preparation is in doubt it is forbidden; but him who said, if the preparation is in doubt it is permitted, here he agrees that it is forbidden. For wind-fall there is a doubt where it fell today or fell yesterday, but here one is forbidden and it is proof for all of them.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Does this follow Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle neither with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. Rebbi Yose said, the language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a ṭerefa are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a ṭerefa which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching. And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the sons of Jehudah ben Shamuai that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

“If it was laid on the holiday it may be eaten on the Sabbath, on the Sabbath it may be eaten on the holiday. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, this is the disagreement. The house of Shammai say that it may be eaten, but the House of Hillel say that it may not be eaten.” Rebbi Ḥanina instructed the Sepphoreans about spontaneous growth of mustard and about the egg following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan came and preached to them following the rabbis here and the rabbis there. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Joṣadaq: Because of these two things did Rebbi Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, why did you bring me this old man, what I am permitting he prohibits, what I am prohibiting he permits. Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Yasa and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammay say that sour dough {causes liability} by the size of an olive and leavened matter by the size of a date, but the House of Hillel say that both are by the size of an olive.

MISHNAH: If somebody slaughtered a wild animal or a bird on the holiday, the House of Shammai say that he shall dig with a picket and cover, but the House of Hillel say that he should not slaughter unless he had dust prepared. But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, <and> that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

MISHNAH: [4]: The House of Shammai say, one does not move the ladder from dovecote to dovecote, but one may bend it from window to window; and the House of Hillel permit it. The House of Shammai say, one may not take unless one had moved when it was still daylight, but the House of Hillel say, he may stand there and say, this and that I shall take.

MISHNAH: [4]: The House of Shammai say, one does not move the ladder from dovecote to dovecote, but one may bend it from window to window; and the House of Hillel permit it. The House of Shammai say, one may not take unless one had moved when it was still daylight, but the House of Hillel say, he may stand there and say, this and that I shall take.

“The House of Hillel say, he may stand there and say, this and that I shall take.” The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages say, only if he delineates and says, from here to there;” and here they are saying so? Still they hold that one is restrictive if living things are involved. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Levi was knocking on his dovecote and saying, my dovecote shall provide me tomorrow.

“The House of Hillel say, he may stand there and say, this and that I shall take.” The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages say, only if he delineates and says, from here to there;” and here they are saying so? Still they hold that one is restrictive if living things are involved. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Levi was knocking on his dovecote and saying, my dovecote shall provide me tomorrow.

Samuel said, anybody who tightly closes the shutters on the holiday is liable because of building. This is difficult. Something which if it was done on the Sabbath makes him liable for a purification sacrifice the House of Hillel permit to restore? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted the end because of the start. For if you say that he cannot put them back he will not open. Don’t let him open! Then he detracts from the enjoyment of the holiday. Rebbi Aḥa said, he may put them back on condition that he not restore completely. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if there is no door there. But if there is a door he uses the door.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say that one may not take the pestle to cut meat on it, but the House of Hillel permit. The House of Shammai say that one may not give the hide to be trampled on nor lift it unless meat was left on it, but the House of Hillel permit. The House of Shammai say that one may not remove the shutters but the House of Hillel permit even to return them.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say that one may not take the pestle to cut meat on it, but the House of Hillel permit. The House of Shammai say that one may not give the hide to be trampled on nor lift it unless meat was left on it, but the House of Hillel permit. The House of Shammai say that one may not remove the shutters but the House of Hillel permit even to return them.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say that one may not take the pestle to cut meat on it, but the House of Hillel permit. The House of Shammai say that one may not give the hide to be trampled on nor lift it unless meat was left on it, but the House of Hillel permit. The House of Shammai say that one may not remove the shutters but the House of Hillel permit even to return them.

HALAKHAH: [“The House of Shammai say that one may not take the pestle to cut meat on it, but the House of Hillel permit.”] Therefore, not to cut meat on it is forbidden. This is what Rebbi (Abba,) Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav said: The Sages agree with Rebbi Neḥemiah about the press, the plank, and the mace; the press with which he presses, the plank on which one beats them, the mace with which he smashes them.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one may bring neither a small child, nor a lulav, nor a Torah scroll into the public domain, but the House of Hillel permit it.

It was stated: And not the key; the House of Hillel permit. And Rav Hoshaia the son of Rav Isaac said, this refers to a key of edibles, but not to a key of implements. But did not Rebbi Abbahu sit and teach, and a key of a jewel box in his hand? He had pepper inside.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai are saying, one may not bring ḥallah and priests’ parts to a Cohen on the holiday, whether they have been separated the day before or on the day itself, but the House of Hillel permit. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, it is an equal cut. Ḥallah and priests’ parts are a gift to the Cohen, and heave is a gift to the Cohen. Just as one may not bring heave to the Cohen, so one may not bring these parts. The House of Hillel said to them, no. If you mention heave where he has no right to separate, what can you say about the gifts which he may separate?

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai are saying, one may not bring ḥallah and priests’ parts to a Cohen on the holiday, whether they have been separated the day before or on the day itself, but the House of Hillel permit. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, it is an equal cut. Ḥallah and priests’ parts are a gift to the Cohen, and heave is a gift to the Cohen. Just as one may not bring heave to the Cohen, so one may not bring these parts. The House of Hillel said to them, no. If you mention heave where he has no right to separate, what can you say about the gifts which he may separate?