rulings

Two sheaves [left lying together] are “forgotten,” but three are not “forgotten.” Two bundles of olives or carobs are “forgotten” but three are not “forgotten.” Two flax-stalks are “forgotten”, but three are not “forgotten”. Two grapes are considered “grape gleanings,” but three are not “grape gleanings.” Two ears of grain are deemed “gleanings,” but three are not gleanings.” All these [rulings] are according to Bet Hillel. And concerning them all Bet Shammai says that three [that are left] belong to the poor, and four belong to the owner.

There were two judges of fines in Jerusalem, Admon and Hanan ben Avishalom. Hanan stated two rulings and Admon stated seven. If a man went to a country beyond the sea and his wife claimed maintenance: Hanan says: she must take an oath at the end but not at the beginning. The sons of the high priests differed from him and ruled that she must take an oath both at the beginning and at the end. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas agreed with their ruling. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Hanan has spoken well; she need take an oath only at the end.

Admon said seven [rulings]: If a man dies and leaves sons and daughters, if the estate is large, the sons inherit it and the daughters are maintained [from it]. And if the estate is small, the daughters are maintained from it, and the sons can go begging. Admon said, “Just because I’m a male I lose out!” Rabban Gamaliel said; I agree with the words of Admon.

The following cases are [examples] of the lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and of the rigorous rulings of Beth Hillel. An egg which is laid on a festival Beth Shammai says: it may be eaten, and Beth Hillel says: it may not be eaten. Beth Shammai says: yeast as much as an olive [in quantity], and leavened food as much as a date, and Beth Hillel says: as much as an olive [in quantity] in both cases.

The following cases are [examples] of the lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and of the rigorous rulings of Beth Hillel. An egg which is laid on a festival Beth Shammai says: it may be eaten, and Beth Hillel says: it may not be eaten. Beth Shammai says: yeast as much as an olive [in quantity], and leavened food as much as a date, and Beth Hillel says: as much as an olive [in quantity] in both cases.

Rabbi Judah says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel. The blood of a carcass: Beth Shammai pronounces it clean, And Beth Hillel pronounces it unclean. An egg found in a [bird’s] carcass: if the like of it were sold in the market, it is permitted, and if not, it is forbidden, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. And Beth Hillel forbids it. But they agree in the case of an egg found in a trefa [bird] that it is forbidden since it had its growth in a forbidden condition. 3+4) The blood of a non-Jewish woman and the blood of purity of a leprous woman: Beth Shammai pronounces clean; And Beth Hillel says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. One may eat fruits of the seventh year with an expression of thanks and without an expression of thanks [to the owner of the field], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: one may not eat with an expression of thanks. Beth Shammai says: a waterskin [is liable to become impure only if it is] tied up and remains unimpaired. And the school of Hillel says: even if it is not tied up.

Rabbi Judah says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel. The blood of a carcass: Beth Shammai pronounces it clean, And Beth Hillel pronounces it unclean. An egg found in a [bird’s] carcass: if the like of it were sold in the market, it is permitted, and if not, it is forbidden, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. And Beth Hillel forbids it. But they agree in the case of an egg found in a trefa [bird] that it is forbidden since it had its growth in a forbidden condition. 3+4) The blood of a non-Jewish woman and the blood of purity of a leprous woman: Beth Shammai pronounces clean; And Beth Hillel says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. One may eat fruits of the seventh year with an expression of thanks and without an expression of thanks [to the owner of the field], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: one may not eat with an expression of thanks. Beth Shammai says: a waterskin [is liable to become impure only if it is] tied up and remains unimpaired. And the school of Hillel says: even if it is not tied up.

Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel. A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave.

Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel. A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave.

Rabbi Yishmael says: there are three instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and strict rulings by Beth Hillel. The book of Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: it defiles the hands. Water of purification which has done its duty: Beth Shammai pronounces it pure, But Beth Hillel pronounces it impure. Black cumin: Beth Shammai pronounces it not liable to become impure, But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable to become impure. So, too, with regard to tithes.

Rabbi Yishmael says: there are three instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and strict rulings by Beth Hillel. The book of Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: it defiles the hands. Water of purification which has done its duty: Beth Shammai pronounces it pure, But Beth Hillel pronounces it impure. Black cumin: Beth Shammai pronounces it not liable to become impure, But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable to become impure. So, too, with regard to tithes.

Rabbi Eliezer says: there are two instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and strict rulings by Beth Hillel. The blood of a woman after childbirth who has not immersed herself, Beth Shammai says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. But Beth Hillel says: it causes impurity whether wet or dry. However, they agree in the case of the blood of a woman who gave birth when she had non-menstrual discharge, that it causes defilement whether wet or dry.

Rabbi Eliezer says: there are two instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and strict rulings by Beth Hillel. The blood of a woman after childbirth who has not immersed herself, Beth Shammai says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. But Beth Hillel says: it causes impurity whether wet or dry. However, they agree in the case of the blood of a woman who gave birth when she had non-menstrual discharge, that it causes defilement whether wet or dry.

If the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred and said to the others, “You are making a mistake”, or if the mufla of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a mamzer or a nathin or an elder who did not have children, they are exempt, for it says here (Lev 4:13) “congregation” and it says later on (Num 35:24) “congregation”; just as the “congregation” further on must be fit to issue rulings, so too the “congregation” mentioned here must be fit to issue rulings. If the court issued a [wrong] decision unwittingly and all the people acted unwittingly, they bring a bull. [If the court ruled wrong] intentionally and [the people] acted unwillingly, they bring a lamb or a goat. [If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt.

If the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred and said to the others, “You are making a mistake”, or if the mufla of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a mamzer or a nathin or an elder who did not have children, they are exempt, for it says here (Lev 4:13) “congregation” and it says later on (Num 35:24) “congregation”; just as the “congregation” further on must be fit to issue rulings, so too the “congregation” mentioned here must be fit to issue rulings. If the court issued a [wrong] decision unwittingly and all the people acted unwittingly, they bring a bull. [If the court ruled wrong] intentionally and [the people] acted unwillingly, they bring a lamb or a goat. [If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt.

If the court ruled [in error] and all the people or a majority of them acted accordingly they bring a bull. And in the case of idolatry they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: the twelve tribes bring twelve bulls; And in the case of idolatry twelve bulls and twelve goats. R. Shimon says: thirteen bullocks; And in the case of idolatry, thirteen bulls and thirteen goats: a bull and a goat for each tribe, and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court ruled [in error] and seven tribes or a majority of them acted accordingly, they bring a bull; And in the case of idolatry, they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah said: the seven tribes who sinned must bring seven bulls and the rest of the tribes who did not sin must bring bulls on their behalf because even those who did not sin must bring on behalf of the ones who sinned. Rabbi Shimon said: eight bulls; And in the case of idolatry, eight bulls and eight goats, a bull and a goat for every tribe and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court of one of the tribes ruled [in error], and that tribe acted accordingly, that tribe is liable, but all the other tribes are exempt; these are the words of Rabbi Judah. But the Sages say: there is no liability except as a result of the rulings of the highest court; for it says, “And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err”, but not the congregation of one particular tribe.

All that require immersion in water according to the rulings of the Torah defile consecrated things, terumah, unconsecrated food, and [second] tithe; And he is forbidden to enter the sanctuary. After immersion [but before the sun sets] he defiles holy things and invalidates terumah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages ruled: he invalidates consecrated things and terumah. But he is permitted to unconsecrated food and [second] tithe. And if he entered the sanctuary, whether before or after his immersion, he incurs guilt.

Thirteen rulings govern the carrion of a clean bird: There must be intention; It need not be rendered susceptible; It conveys food uncleanness if its minimum bulk is that of an egg; And it conveys uncleanness when in one's gullet if its minimum bulk is that of an olive; He that eats of it must wait until sunset [to be clean]; Guilt is incurred on account of it for entering the sanctuary; Terumah is burned on account of it; He who eats a limb of it while it is alive suffers forty lashes; Slaughtering it or nipping [off its neck] cleanses it even if it is terefah, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: they do not cleanse it. Rabbi Yose says: the slaughtering does cleanse it but nipping does not.

That means after the divine voice was heard. But before the divine voice was heard, it was said of anyone who wanted to restrict himself and follow the restrictions both of the school of Shammai and that of Hillel: (Eccl. 2:14) “the fool walks in darkness;” anyone who followed the leniencies of both of them was called an evildoer. But one had to follow either the leniencies and restrictions of one school or the leniencies and restrictions of the other. That was before the divine voice was heard. But after the divine voice was heard, practice always follows the school of Hillel and everyone who transgresses the rulings of the school of Hillel merits death. We have stated: “A divine voice came and said: Both of them are the words of the Living God but practice follows the school of Hillel”. Where was the divine voice heard? Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: The divine voice came in Jabneh.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean, Rebbi Yasa bar Ḥanina: One does not ask rulings on practice before the bier of a deceased. But Rebbi Yoḥanan asked Rebbi Yannai before the bier of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq about him who dedicated his holocaust sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple, and he answered him! Let us say when he was far away or when they were bringing him to the study hall. But Rebbi Jeremiah asked Rebbi Zeïra before the bier of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac! Let us say that he answered him when he was far away; when he was close he did not answer him.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: One does not ask rulings on practice before the bier of a deceased. But Rebbi Yoḥanan asked Rebbi Yannai before the bier of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq about him who dedicated his elevation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Sanctuary, and he answered him! Let us say when they were bringing him to the study hall. But Rebbi Jeremiah asked Rebbi Zeïra before the bier of (Rebbi Simeon and) Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac! Let us say that he answered him when he was far away; when he was close he did not answer him.

Gemara. Why are all these [rulings] needed? It is necessary [to state them all]. For if he had only informed us of [the roof of] a house which had been opened, [one would have said that the validity applied to this case only] because the partitions are made for the house, but in the case of a courtyard which is surrounded by columns, where the partitions are not made for the walls are not made for the columns it does not apply.

This is what we mean [by our question]: Since all these dates were laid down by the Men of the Great Assembly, for if you should [deny this and say] that the Men of the Great Assembly laid down only the fourteenth and fifteenth, [is it possible that] the [later] Rabbis should have come and annulled an enactment made by the Men of the Great Assembly. Haven’t we learned: One court cannot annul the rulings of another court unless it is superior to it in number and in wisdom’?

Immediately Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavi accepted upon himself to only issue halachic rulings in front of Shimon ben Shatach, and for all the remaining days of Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavi, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that witness, and his voice would ring out. And the passerby thought to themselves, saying that it was the voice of the killed. He told them, it's my voice. I'll bring you a proof, that tomorrow when I die the voice will no longer be heard.

If so then the Torah would have said "you may not proceed to eat it", why then does it say "שאת", carry it? [Rather, it must also mean to bring it.] So then let's say that it is exclusively coming to teach us this. If so then the Torah would have said "you may not proceed to bring it", why then does it say "שאת", carry it? Infer from this both rulings.

Rav Malkiah said in the name of Rav Adah bar Ahava, It is forbidden for a person to place ashes on a wound because it resembles a tattoo. Rav Nachman brei d'Rav Ikka said The [rulings concerning] the spits, the maidservants, and the pores [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings concerning] the white spots, the ashes, and the cheese [are attributed to] Rav Malkia.

Rav Malkiah said in the name of Rav Adah bar Ahava, It is forbidden for a person to place ashes on a wound because it resembles a tattoo. Rav Nachman brei d'Rav Ikka said The [rulings concerning] the spits, the maidservants, and the pores [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings concerning] the white spots, the ashes, and the cheese [are attributed to] Rav Malkia.

Rav Pappa said, The [rulings that concern] mishnas and baraisas [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings that concern] amorahic teachings [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. And your mnemonic would be, A mishna is a queen. What is the difference between [Rav Nachman's opinion and Rav Pappa's opinion]? The difference between them is [the ruling concerning] maidservants.

Rav Pappa said, The [rulings that concern] mishnas and baraisas [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings that concern] amorahic teachings [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. And your mnemonic would be, A mishna is a queen. What is the difference between [Rav Nachman's opinion and Rav Pappa's opinion]? The difference between them is [the ruling concerning] maidservants.