shammai

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is self-contradictory ! Thou declarest, "In the case of the caper-bush, Bet Shammai say : It constitutes Kila'im in a vineyard" — hence it is a kind of vegetable ! It then goes on to state, "Both, however, admit that it is subject to 'Orlah" — hence it is a kind of tree!

There is no contradiction; for Bet Shammai, being in doubt, take the stricter view in both cases. Nevertheless Bet Shammai have a doubt whether it is subject to 'Orlah; and we have a Mishnaic teaching: Where there is a doubt [whether a thing is subject to] 'Orlah — in the Land of Israel it is prohibited [to be used], in Syria it is permitted, and outside the Land one may go down and buy it,

There is no contradiction; for Bet Shammai, being in doubt, take the stricter view in both cases. Nevertheless Bet Shammai have a doubt whether it is subject to 'Orlah; and we have a Mishnaic teaching: Where there is a doubt [whether a thing is subject to] 'Orlah — in the Land of Israel it is prohibited [to be used], in Syria it is permitted, and outside the Land one may go down and buy it,

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

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

MISHNAH If a man said the benediction over wine before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the wine after the meal. If he said it over the dainty served before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty served after the meal. If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty; over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread. Bet Shammai declare : Nor from saying it over a cooked dish.

If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty ; over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread. Bet Shammai declare : Nor from saying it over a cooked dish.

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

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

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

One who has eaten Demai, etc. But he had no right [to eat it] ! If he so choose, he can renounce his possessions and become a poor man, and then he would have the right [to eat it] ; for we have a Mishnaic teaching : We may feed the poor and soldiers on Demai. But Rab Huna has said : It has been taught : Bet Shammai declare that we may not feed the poor and soldiers on Demai.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do Bet Shammai, however, hold that the benediction over the day is of greater importance? Lo, there is a teaching: On entering his house at the conclusion of the Sabbath, he says the benediction over the wine, the light and the spices and after that says the Habdalah ; and should he have only one cup [of wine], he leaves it until after the meal and combines all [the benedictions] afterwards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless there is a difficulty ! Bet Shammai hold that the advent of a [holy] day is different from its conclusion ; for with its advent the more we anticipate it the better ; but with its conclusion the later we defer it the better, so that it may not seem to us a burden.

Do Bet Shammai hold that the Grace after meals requires a cup of wine ? For our Mishnah teaches : If wine is brought to them after the food and there is only sufficient for one cup, Bet Shammai declare : He says the benediction over the wine and then over the food. Is it not to be supposed that he says the benediction [over the wine] and then drinks it ? No ; he says the benediction and leaves it [undrunk for the Grace].

Do Bet Shammai hold that the Grace after meals requires a cup of wine ? For our Mishnah teaches : If wine is brought to them after the food and there is only sufficient for one cup, Bet Shammai declare : He says the benediction over the wine and then over the food. Is it not to be supposed that he says the benediction [over the wine] and then drinks it ? No ; he says the benediction and leaves it [undrunk for the Grace].

But R. Hiyya has taught : Bet Shammai declare : He says the benediction over the wine and drinks it, and after that says Grace ! Nay, there are two Tannaim who differ as to the teaching of Bet Shammai.

But R. Hiyya has taught : Bet Shammai declare : He says the benediction over the wine and drinks it, and after that says Grace ! Nay, there are two Tannaim who differ as to the teaching of Bet Shammai.

Bet Shammai say : We wash the hands and then fill the cup, etc.

Our Rabbis have taught : Bet Shammai say : We wash the hands and then fill the cup ; for if thou sayest that we till the cup first, there is a fear lest the liquid which is on the outside of the cup may contract defilement on account of his hands and in its turn defile the cup.

Bet Shammai hold that it is forbidden to use a vessel whose exterior has become defiled by liquid for fear of the spillings, but there is no need to fear lest the moisture of the hand will contract defilement through the cup.

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

Bet Shammai say : One wipes his hands, etc.

Our Rabbis have taught : Bet Shammai say : One wipes his hands with a napkin which he lays upon the table ; for if thou sayest that [he lays it] upon the bolster, there is a fear lest the moisture on the napkin may contract defilement on account of the bolster and this in turn may render the hands ritually unclean.

What is the point of difference between them? Bet Shammai hold that it is forbidden to use a table [unclean in] the second degree through fear of those who are eating Terumah;

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

Bet Shammai say : [After the meal] they clear up, etc.

Our Rabbis have taught : Bet Shammai say : They clear up and then we wash the hands [before Grace] ; for if thou sayest that we wash the hands first, the consequence may be that thou wilt spoil some food. (Bet Shammai do not hold that the washing of the hands comes first. What is the reason? On account of the pieces of breads.)

Our Rabbis have taught : Bet Shammai say : They clear up and then we wash the hands [before Grace] ; for if thou sayest that we wash the hands first, the consequence may be that thou wilt spoil some food. (Bet Shammai do not hold that the washing of the hands comes first. What is the reason? On account of the pieces of breads.)

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

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

Bet Shammai say: [The order of benedictions is] light, food, etc.

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

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

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

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

Bet Shammai say : The wording is "...Who created [bara'] the light [me'or] of fire" etc.

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

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

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

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

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

Thou mayest, however, argue that the same thing applies to one who omitted it intentionally and the statement "he forgot" is only intended to show the extreme view of Bet Shammai ; therefore he informs us.

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

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

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

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak said: The Halachah is that [the Sukkah] must be able to contain his head, the greater part of his body, and his table. R. Abba said to him: [In] agreement with whom [is this ruling?] Like Bais Shammai? He [Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak] said to him: According to whom else? (I. E. Who else would it be?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abaye said: Rabbi, R. Josiah, R. Judah, R. Shimon, R. Gamaliel, Beth Shammai, R. Eliezer and ‘others’ -all hold the opinion that the Sukkah must be constructed like a permanent abode.

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

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

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

And Beth Shammai also, do not they need the verse for this deduction? Yes, indeed.

And Bet Shammai? — They hold the same opinion as R. Eliezer, who said that no sukkah may be made in the intermediate days of the Festival.

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

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

If so, read the concluding [part:] R. Meir ruled, he should remove one from between two, but not loosen. Is not R. Meir's view thus identical with that of Beth Shammai?

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

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

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

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

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

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