shammai

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

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

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

1) Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the [commandment] of the sukkah. 2) A minor who no longer relies on his mother is obligated in the [commandment] of the sukkah. 3) It happened that the daughter-in-law of Shammai the elder gave birth and he opened up the ceiling and put skhakh on top of the bed[posts] on behalf of the minor.

It once happened that the daughter-in-law of [Shammai gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof and put skhakh above the child]. Did the mishnah cite the incident in order to contradict [the previous halakhah]? There is something missing, and thus it should be taught: But Shammai is strict, and [indeed] it once happened that the daughter-inlaw of Shammai the elder gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof, and put skhakh over the bed for the child.

It once happened that the daughter-in-law of [Shammai gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof and put skhakh above the child]. Did the mishnah cite the incident in order to contradict [the previous halakhah]? There is something missing, and thus it should be taught: But Shammai is strict, and [indeed] it once happened that the daughter-inlaw of Shammai the elder gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof, and put skhakh over the bed for the child.

It once happened that the daughter-in-law of [Shammai gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof and put skhakh above the child]. Did the mishnah cite the incident in order to contradict [the previous halakhah]? There is something missing, and thus it should be taught: But Shammai is strict, and [indeed] it once happened that the daughter-inlaw of Shammai the elder gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof, and put skhakh over the bed for the child.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beth Shammai says that one recites the blessing of the day and then the blessing over the wine since it is the day which causes the wine to be brought and the day has been sanctified before the wine was brought. Whereas Bet Hillel says that one recites the blessing over the wine first and then the blessing of the day, since the wine is the cause of the sanctification being recited. Another reason: The blessing over wine is frequent,and the blessing of the day is infrequent,and that which is frequent takes precedence over that which is infrequent.

Shall we say that Rav is in agreement with Beth Shammai and Rabbah b. Bar Hannah with Beth Hillel?

And Rabbah b. Bar Hannah could say to you: I could state my view even according to Beth Shammai, for Beth Shammai stated their ruling only in that case, since it is the day which causes the wine to be brought, but in this case, if it were not for the Sukkah, would we not still recite [the blessing of] the season?

And Rabbah b. Bar Hannah could say to you: I could state my view even according to Beth Shammai, for Beth Shammai stated their ruling only in that case, since it is the day which causes the wine to be brought, but in this case, if it were not for the Sukkah, would we not still recite [the blessing of] the season?

Whom does this follow? Bet Shammai, as we have learned: Beth Shammai say: Offerings of wellbeing may be brought on the festival, but without laying on of hands; but not burnt-offerings; while Beth Hillel say:

Whom does this follow? Bet Shammai, as we have learned: Beth Shammai say: Offerings of wellbeing may be brought on the festival, but without laying on of hands; but not burnt-offerings; while Beth Hillel say:

They objected: R. Meir says that Kohelet does not defile the hands, and that about the Song of Songs there is a dispute. R. Yose says that the Song of Songs defiles the hands, and about Koheleth there is a difference of opinion. R. Shimon says that Koheleth is one of those matters in regard to which Beth Shammai were lenient and Beth Hillel stringent, but Ruth and the Song of Songs and Esther [certainly] make the hands unclean. Shmuel concurred with R. Joshua.

I. (1) All are bound in the case of a holocaust except a deaf man, a fool, and a child, and one of doubtful sex, and one of double sex, and women, and slaves who are not manumitted, the lame man, and the blind man, and the sick man, and the old man, and him who is not able to go up on his feet. What is the definition of a child? Every one who is not able to ride upon his father's shoulders, and to go up from Jerusalem to the mountain of the House. These are the words of the house of Shammai. But the house of Hillel say, Every one who is not able to take hold of his father's hand, and to go up from Jerusalem to the mountain of the House, as it is said, "three footgoing times" (Ex. xxiii. 14).

(2) The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver and the chagigah a meah of silver, but the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the chagigah two pieces of silver.

For there is a canonical Mishnah, He who is half a slave and half free serves his master one day and himself the other day (Baba Bathra, 13a, i. 11). These are the words of the house of Hillel. The house of Shammai said to them,

You have settled it well for his master, but you have not settled it well for himself. Does he wish to marry a slave woman? he is not able; a free woman? he is not able; to abstain from marriage? but was not the world created only that men might be fruitful and multiply? as it is said, "he created it not in vain; he formed it to be inhabited" (Is. xlv. 18). But for the sake of the maintenance of the world they force his master and make him a free man, and he writes for him a bill on half his property, and the house of Hillel comes round to teach according to the words of the house of Shammai.

Who brought him hither? Abai said to him, As his mother was bound by the law of rejoicing, his mother brought him hither. Henceforward, if he can go up, holding by the hand of his father, from Jerusalem to the mountain of the House, he is bound; but if not, he is free. R. [Zera] replied, I take the side of the house of Hillel against the words of the house of Shammai. For we read, "But Hannah went not up; for she said to her husband, Not until the child be weaned, then I will bring him" (1 Sam. i. 22). But Samuel was able to ride upon his father's shoulders. Abai said to him, Even according to thine own argument there is a difficulty for thee. How was not Hannah in her own person bound by the law of rejoicing? But the real explanation is that Hannah saw great delicacy in Samuel, and was uneasy about Samuel in respect to the fatigue of the journey.

R. Simeon asked, What of a child that is lame, according to the words of the house of Shammai, or one that is blind, according to the words of both of them? Explain this. If we are to speak of the case of a lame person, who cannot stretch out his limb, or a blind person, who cannot open his eye, see now, an adult is free, why should we ask about a child? It is not necessary to discuss such a case. But in the case of a lame person, who can stretch out his limb, or a blind person who can open his eye, what of this case? Abai said, Wherever the adult is bound according to the Law, we educate the child in it also according to our Rabbis, and wherever the adult is free according to the Law, the child also is free according to the Rabbis.

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

And what is the reason that R. Ishmael is represented as expressing an opinion agreeing with the house of Shammai? viz., "If thou dost imagine that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the continual burnt-offering, how should there be anything which at the first did not need to be flayed and divided, but in the end did need to be flayed and divided?" But then R. Jose the Galilaean said, The burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." At the first it did not need to be flayed and divided, but in the end it did need to be flayed and divided. For there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jose the Galilaean says, The burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was not subject to flaying or dividing, inasmuch as the regulations for flaying and dividing were only from the time of the Tabernacle of the Congregation and henceforward. Strike out R. Ishmael.

I. (3) Burnt-offerings on a middle holiday come from things not previously consecrated, but the peace-offerings from the tithe. On a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say that they come from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say that they come from the tithe.

But according to this it is burnt-offerings on a middle holiday that come from things not previously consecrated. Well, then, it follows that on a high holiday they come from the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. And if thou sayest, Then this teaches us that burnt-offerings are offered on a middle holiday, and are not offered on a high holiday, with whom will this view correspond? With the house of Shammai. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt-offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Beytsah, 19a, ii. 2, and elsewhere). There is a hiatus here, and this is the real teaching. It means that burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. How is the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, different from that of any other high holiday? R. Ashi said, See, we learn from this that the Chagigah of the fifteenth day is taken from things not previously consecrated, but the Chagigah of the fourteenth not;

But according to this it is burnt-offerings on a middle holiday that come from things not previously consecrated. Well, then, it follows that on a high holiday they come from the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. And if thou sayest, Then this teaches us that burnt-offerings are offered on a middle holiday, and are not offered on a high holiday, with whom will this view correspond? With the house of Shammai. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt-offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Beytsah, 19a, ii. 2, and elsewhere). There is a hiatus here, and this is the real teaching. It means that burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. How is the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, different from that of any other high holiday? R. Ashi said, See, we learn from this that the Chagigah of the fifteenth day is taken from things not previously consecrated, but the Chagigah of the fourteenth not;

But according to this it is burnt-offerings on a middle holiday that come from things not previously consecrated. Well, then, it follows that on a high holiday they come from the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. And if thou sayest, Then this teaches us that burnt-offerings are offered on a middle holiday, and are not offered on a high holiday, with whom will this view correspond? With the house of Shammai. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt-offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Beytsah, 19a, ii. 2, and elsewhere). There is a hiatus here, and this is the real teaching. It means that burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. How is the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, different from that of any other high holiday? R. Ashi said, See, we learn from this that the Chagigah of the fifteenth day is taken from things not previously consecrated, but the Chagigah of the fourteenth not;

But according to this it is burnt-offerings on a middle holiday that come from things not previously consecrated. Well, then, it follows that on a high holiday they come from the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. And if thou sayest, Then this teaches us that burnt-offerings are offered on a middle holiday, and are not offered on a high holiday, with whom will this view correspond? With the house of Shammai. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt-offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Beytsah, 19a, ii. 2, and elsewhere). There is a hiatus here, and this is the real teaching. It means that burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. How is the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, different from that of any other high holiday? R. Ashi said, See, we learn from this that the Chagigah of the fifteenth day is taken from things not previously consecrated, but the Chagigah of the fourteenth not;

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The heavens were created in the beginning, and afterwards the earth was created, for it is said, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. i. 1). But the house of Hillel say, The earth was created in the beginning, and afterwards the heavens, for it is said, "in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven" (Gen. ii. 4). The house of Hillel said to the house of Shammai, According to your words a man builds an upper story, and afterwards builds a house: and the heavens are the upper story, as it is said, "It is he that buildeth in the heavens his upper stories, and hath founded his vault upon the earth" (Amos ix. 6). The house of Shammai said to the house of Hillel, According to your words a man makes a footstool and afterwards makes a throne: and the heavens are a throne, as it is said, "Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool" (Is. lxvi. 1). But wise men say, The one and the other were created together, as it is said, "Yea, mine hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spread out the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together" (Is. xlviii. 13). And the others—what do they say of the word "together"? for they cannot be separated the one from the other. The passages are difficult to reconcile. Resh Lakish said, When they were created, He created the heavens, and afterwards created the earth, but when He stretched them out, He stretched out the earth, and afterwards stretched out the heavens.

Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The heavens were created in the beginning, and afterwards the earth was created, for it is said, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. i. 1). But the house of Hillel say, The earth was created in the beginning, and afterwards the heavens, for it is said, "in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven" (Gen. ii. 4). The house of Hillel said to the house of Shammai, According to your words a man builds an upper story, and afterwards builds a house: and the heavens are the upper story, as it is said, "It is he that buildeth in the heavens his upper stories, and hath founded his vault upon the earth" (Amos ix. 6). The house of Shammai said to the house of Hillel, According to your words a man makes a footstool and afterwards makes a throne: and the heavens are a throne, as it is said, "Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool" (Is. lxvi. 1). But wise men say, The one and the other were created together, as it is said, "Yea, mine hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spread out the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together" (Is. xlviii. 13). And the others—what do they say of the word "together"? for they cannot be separated the one from the other. The passages are difficult to reconcile. Resh Lakish said, When they were created, He created the heavens, and afterwards created the earth, but when He stretched them out, He stretched out the earth, and afterwards stretched out the heavens.

Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The heavens were created in the beginning, and afterwards the earth was created, for it is said, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. i. 1). But the house of Hillel say, The earth was created in the beginning, and afterwards the heavens, for it is said, "in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven" (Gen. ii. 4). The house of Hillel said to the house of Shammai, According to your words a man builds an upper story, and afterwards builds a house: and the heavens are the upper story, as it is said, "It is he that buildeth in the heavens his upper stories, and hath founded his vault upon the earth" (Amos ix. 6). The house of Shammai said to the house of Hillel, According to your words a man makes a footstool and afterwards makes a throne: and the heavens are a throne, as it is said, "Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool" (Is. lxvi. 1). But wise men say, The one and the other were created together, as it is said, "Yea, mine hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spread out the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together" (Is. xlviii. 13). And the others—what do they say of the word "together"? for they cannot be separated the one from the other. The passages are difficult to reconcile. Resh Lakish said, When they were created, He created the heavens, and afterwards created the earth, but when He stretched them out, He stretched out the earth, and afterwards stretched out the heavens.

II. (2) Jose ben Joezer says that a man is not to lay on his hand, but Joseph ben Jochanan says that a man is to lay it; Joshua ben P'rachyah says that a man is not to lay it, but Mattai the Arbelite says that a man is to lay it. Jehudah ben Tabbai says that a man is not to lay it, but Simeon ben Shetach says that a man is to lay it. Shemaiah says that a man is to lay it, but Abtalion says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel and Menahem did not differ. Menahem went out. Shammai entered in. Shammai says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel says that a man is to lay it.

II. (2) Jose ben Joezer says that a man is not to lay on his hand, but Joseph ben Jochanan says that a man is to lay it; Joshua ben P'rachyah says that a man is not to lay it, but Mattai the Arbelite says that a man is to lay it. Jehudah ben Tabbai says that a man is not to lay it, but Simeon ben Shetach says that a man is to lay it. Shemaiah says that a man is to lay it, but Abtalion says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel and Menahem did not differ. Menahem went out. Shammai entered in. Shammai says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel says that a man is to lay it.

Menahem went out, Shammai entered in, etc. Whither did he go out? Abai said, He went out to destruction. Rabba said, He went out for the service of the king. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, that Menahem went out for the service of the king, and there went out with him eighty pairs of disciples clothed in Syrian robes. R. Shemen bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said, Let the sabbath rest be by no means a light thing in thine eyes; for lo, the laying on of the hands is only prohibited on account of the Sabbath rest, and the great men of the nation were divided upon the matter. That is self-evident. But as this is a case of a Sabbath rest which clashes with a positive command, there was need of it. But this also is self-evident. It was to meet the objection of the person who says, In the matter of the laying on of the hands itself men are divided. We learn from this that it is in the matter of Sabbath rest that they are divided. Ramai bar Chama said, Learn hence that we require the laying on to be done with all one's strength, for if thou dost imagine that we do not require it to be done with all one's strength, how is the idea of work involved in the laying on of the hands? Some people adduce the passage, "Speak unto the sons of Israel ... and he shall lay his hand" (Lev. i. 2, 4). The sons of Israel lay on their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not lay on their hands. R. Jose and R. Ishmael say, Daughters of Israel lay on their hands by permission. R. Jose said, Abba El'azar related to me the following story: Once we had a calf belonging to the sacrifices of peace-offerings, and we brought it to the court of the women, and the women laid their hands upon it, not because the laying on of the hands belongs to women, but so as to gratify the women. And if thou dost imagine we require the laying on of the hands to be done with all one's strength, dost thou mean to say that in order to gratify women we introduced work into holy things? But do we not learn hence that we do not require it to be done with all one's strength? Nay, by all means I will grant you that we require it to be done with all one's strength. He said to them, Rest your hand upon it. If so, it was not because the laying on of the hands belongs to women that it was done. Thou mayest conclude that it has nothing at all to do with the nature of the laying on of the hand. R. Ami says, He is establishing two things; one that it has nothing at all to do with the nature of the laying on of the hands, and the other that it was done in order to gratify the women. Rab Papa said, Learn hence, Sides, and not the head only, are forbidden; for if thou dost imagine that sides are allowed, might they not lay hands on the sides? But no; learn hence that sides are forbidden.

II. (3) The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings on a festival, and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings, and lay their hands on them.

(4) In the case of the day of Pentecost which falls upon the eve of a Sabbath, the house of Shammai say, The day for sacrificing is after the Sabbath, but the house of Hillel say, There is no day for sacrificing after the Sabbath; but they both admit that, if it fall upon a Sabbath, the day for sacrificing is the day after the Sabbath. A high priest is not to clothe himself in his costly garments, but it is allowed in case of a mourning or of a fast, but this is not to confirm the words of those who say, Pentecost is after the Sabbath.

There is a canonical Mishnah, In the case of the day of Pentecost which falls upon the eve of a Sabbath, the house of Shammai say, The day for sacrificing is after the Sabbath, but the house of Hillel say, There is no day for sacrificing (Chag. 17a, i. 6). Do you not think that it means that there is no day at all for sacrificing? No; it cannot mean that a day for sacrificing is not necessary. What then does it mean? We learn from this that we are to bring the sacrifice on its own day? But how can this be? for they have discussed this point once already, for we have a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings on a festival and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Chag. 17a, i. 3). I reply, No; there is no superfluity. For the passage is necessary. For, if he had let me hear only the second paragraph, I should not have doubted through hearing it only, that the house of Shammai insist that men are not to sacrifice on the day of Pentecost, because it is possible to do so on the morrow, but, unless I had a distinct paragraph to the contrary, I should have said thus, They agree as regards the possibility of doing it on the morrow with the house of Hillel; and if he had let me hear only the first paragraph, I should not have doubted through hearing it only, that the house of Hillel say that men may sacrifice because it is impossible to do so on the morrow, but according to this I should have said, They agree as regards the impossibility of doing it on the morrow, with the house of Shammai. Hence the second paragraph was necessary.

There is a canonical Mishnah, In the case of the day of Pentecost which falls upon the eve of a Sabbath, the house of Shammai say, The day for sacrificing is after the Sabbath, but the house of Hillel say, There is no day for sacrificing (Chag. 17a, i. 6). Do you not think that it means that there is no day at all for sacrificing? No; it cannot mean that a day for sacrificing is not necessary. What then does it mean? We learn from this that we are to bring the sacrifice on its own day? But how can this be? for they have discussed this point once already, for we have a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings on a festival and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Chag. 17a, i. 3). I reply, No; there is no superfluity. For the passage is necessary. For, if he had let me hear only the second paragraph, I should not have doubted through hearing it only, that the house of Shammai insist that men are not to sacrifice on the day of Pentecost, because it is possible to do so on the morrow, but, unless I had a distinct paragraph to the contrary, I should have said thus, They agree as regards the possibility of doing it on the morrow with the house of Hillel; and if he had let me hear only the first paragraph, I should not have doubted through hearing it only, that the house of Hillel say that men may sacrifice because it is impossible to do so on the morrow, but according to this I should have said, They agree as regards the impossibility of doing it on the morrow, with the house of Shammai. Hence the second paragraph was necessary.

There is a canonical Mishnah, In the case of the day of Pentecost which falls upon the eve of a Sabbath, the house of Shammai say, The day for sacrificing is after the Sabbath, but the house of Hillel say, There is no day for sacrificing (Chag. 17a, i. 6). Do you not think that it means that there is no day at all for sacrificing? No; it cannot mean that a day for sacrificing is not necessary. What then does it mean? We learn from this that we are to bring the sacrifice on its own day? But how can this be? for they have discussed this point once already, for we have a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings on a festival and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Chag. 17a, i. 3). I reply, No; there is no superfluity. For the passage is necessary. For, if he had let me hear only the second paragraph, I should not have doubted through hearing it only, that the house of Shammai insist that men are not to sacrifice on the day of Pentecost, because it is possible to do so on the morrow, but, unless I had a distinct paragraph to the contrary, I should have said thus, They agree as regards the possibility of doing it on the morrow with the house of Hillel; and if he had let me hear only the first paragraph, I should not have doubted through hearing it only, that the house of Hillel say that men may sacrifice because it is impossible to do so on the morrow, but according to this I should have said, They agree as regards the impossibility of doing it on the morrow, with the house of Shammai. Hence the second paragraph was necessary.

There is a canonical Mishnah, In the case of the day of Pentecost which falls upon the eve of a Sabbath, the house of Shammai say, The day for sacrificing is after the Sabbath, but the house of Hillel say, There is no day for sacrificing (Chag. 17a, i. 6). Do you not think that it means that there is no day at all for sacrificing? No; it cannot mean that a day for sacrificing is not necessary. What then does it mean? We learn from this that we are to bring the sacrifice on its own day? But how can this be? for they have discussed this point once already, for we have a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings on a festival and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Chag. 17a, i. 3). I reply, No; there is no superfluity. For the passage is necessary. For, if he had let me hear only the second paragraph, I should not have doubted through hearing it only, that the house of Shammai insist that men are not to sacrifice on the day of Pentecost, because it is possible to do so on the morrow, but, unless I had a distinct paragraph to the contrary, I should have said thus, They agree as regards the possibility of doing it on the morrow with the house of Hillel; and if he had let me hear only the first paragraph, I should not have doubted through hearing it only, that the house of Hillel say that men may sacrifice because it is impossible to do so on the morrow, but according to this I should have said, They agree as regards the impossibility of doing it on the morrow, with the house of Shammai. Hence the second paragraph was necessary.

Rab Papa said, According to whom is it that we accept now-a-days the testimony of a common person? According to whom? It is according to R. Jose. But let us consider the question of borrowing. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., An earthen vessel protects everything from uncleanness. These are the words of the house of Hillel. The house of Shammai say, It only protects eatables and drinkables and every earthen vessel. The house of Hillel said to the house of Shammai, Wherefore? The house of Shammai said, Because it is unclean on account of the common people, and a vessel that is unclean does not bar. The house of Hillel said to them, But in accordance with the rule ye have just given do ye not declare clean the eatables and drinkables that are within it? The house of Shammai said to them, When we declared clean the eatables and drinkables which are within it,

Rab Papa said, According to whom is it that we accept now-a-days the testimony of a common person? According to whom? It is according to R. Jose. But let us consider the question of borrowing. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., An earthen vessel protects everything from uncleanness. These are the words of the house of Hillel. The house of Shammai say, It only protects eatables and drinkables and every earthen vessel. The house of Hillel said to the house of Shammai, Wherefore? The house of Shammai said, Because it is unclean on account of the common people, and a vessel that is unclean does not bar. The house of Hillel said to them, But in accordance with the rule ye have just given do ye not declare clean the eatables and drinkables that are within it? The house of Shammai said to them, When we declared clean the eatables and drinkables which are within it,

Rab Papa said, According to whom is it that we accept now-a-days the testimony of a common person? According to whom? It is according to R. Jose. But let us consider the question of borrowing. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., An earthen vessel protects everything from uncleanness. These are the words of the house of Hillel. The house of Shammai say, It only protects eatables and drinkables and every earthen vessel. The house of Hillel said to the house of Shammai, Wherefore? The house of Shammai said, Because it is unclean on account of the common people, and a vessel that is unclean does not bar. The house of Hillel said to them, But in accordance with the rule ye have just given do ye not declare clean the eatables and drinkables that are within it? The house of Shammai said to them, When we declared clean the eatables and drinkables which are within it,

Rab Papa said, According to whom is it that we accept now-a-days the testimony of a common person? According to whom? It is according to R. Jose. But let us consider the question of borrowing. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., An earthen vessel protects everything from uncleanness. These are the words of the house of Hillel. The house of Shammai say, It only protects eatables and drinkables and every earthen vessel. The house of Hillel said to the house of Shammai, Wherefore? The house of Shammai said, Because it is unclean on account of the common people, and a vessel that is unclean does not bar. The house of Hillel said to them, But in accordance with the rule ye have just given do ye not declare clean the eatables and drinkables that are within it? The house of Shammai said to them, When we declared clean the eatables and drinkables which are within it,

it was for himself that we declared them clean, but should we declare clean the vessel whose purity is a matter which relates both to thee and to him (Kelim, x. 1)? There is a Baraitha, viz., R. Joshua said, I am ashamed of your words, ye house of Shammai. Is it possible that if a woman be kneading in a trough, and the woman become for any reason unclean, the woman and the trough are unclean for seven days, but the dough is clean? Or suppose that a bowl is full of drinkables. If for any reason the bowl becomes unclean for seven days, yet are the drinkables clean? A certain disciple, one of the disciples of the house of Shammai, joined himself to him and said to him, Shall I tell thee the reason of the house of Shammai? He said to him, Tell me. He said to him, Does an unclean vessel bar, or does it not bar? He said to him, It does not bar. Are the vessels of a common person unclean or clean? He said to him, Unclean. But if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, will he care for thee at all? And not only so, but if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, he will say to thee, Mine is clean, but thine is unclean; and this is the reason of the house of Shammai. Immediately R. Joshua went and threw himself down at the graves of the house of Shammai, and said, I humble myself before you, O bones of the house of Shammai, and when your mysteries are so wonderful, how much more are your explicit teachings? They say that all his days his teeth were black by reason of his fasts.

it was for himself that we declared them clean, but should we declare clean the vessel whose purity is a matter which relates both to thee and to him (Kelim, x. 1)? There is a Baraitha, viz., R. Joshua said, I am ashamed of your words, ye house of Shammai. Is it possible that if a woman be kneading in a trough, and the woman become for any reason unclean, the woman and the trough are unclean for seven days, but the dough is clean? Or suppose that a bowl is full of drinkables. If for any reason the bowl becomes unclean for seven days, yet are the drinkables clean? A certain disciple, one of the disciples of the house of Shammai, joined himself to him and said to him, Shall I tell thee the reason of the house of Shammai? He said to him, Tell me. He said to him, Does an unclean vessel bar, or does it not bar? He said to him, It does not bar. Are the vessels of a common person unclean or clean? He said to him, Unclean. But if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, will he care for thee at all? And not only so, but if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, he will say to thee, Mine is clean, but thine is unclean; and this is the reason of the house of Shammai. Immediately R. Joshua went and threw himself down at the graves of the house of Shammai, and said, I humble myself before you, O bones of the house of Shammai, and when your mysteries are so wonderful, how much more are your explicit teachings? They say that all his days his teeth were black by reason of his fasts.

it was for himself that we declared them clean, but should we declare clean the vessel whose purity is a matter which relates both to thee and to him (Kelim, x. 1)? There is a Baraitha, viz., R. Joshua said, I am ashamed of your words, ye house of Shammai. Is it possible that if a woman be kneading in a trough, and the woman become for any reason unclean, the woman and the trough are unclean for seven days, but the dough is clean? Or suppose that a bowl is full of drinkables. If for any reason the bowl becomes unclean for seven days, yet are the drinkables clean? A certain disciple, one of the disciples of the house of Shammai, joined himself to him and said to him, Shall I tell thee the reason of the house of Shammai? He said to him, Tell me. He said to him, Does an unclean vessel bar, or does it not bar? He said to him, It does not bar. Are the vessels of a common person unclean or clean? He said to him, Unclean. But if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, will he care for thee at all? And not only so, but if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, he will say to thee, Mine is clean, but thine is unclean; and this is the reason of the house of Shammai. Immediately R. Joshua went and threw himself down at the graves of the house of Shammai, and said, I humble myself before you, O bones of the house of Shammai, and when your mysteries are so wonderful, how much more are your explicit teachings? They say that all his days his teeth were black by reason of his fasts.

it was for himself that we declared them clean, but should we declare clean the vessel whose purity is a matter which relates both to thee and to him (Kelim, x. 1)? There is a Baraitha, viz., R. Joshua said, I am ashamed of your words, ye house of Shammai. Is it possible that if a woman be kneading in a trough, and the woman become for any reason unclean, the woman and the trough are unclean for seven days, but the dough is clean? Or suppose that a bowl is full of drinkables. If for any reason the bowl becomes unclean for seven days, yet are the drinkables clean? A certain disciple, one of the disciples of the house of Shammai, joined himself to him and said to him, Shall I tell thee the reason of the house of Shammai? He said to him, Tell me. He said to him, Does an unclean vessel bar, or does it not bar? He said to him, It does not bar. Are the vessels of a common person unclean or clean? He said to him, Unclean. But if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, will he care for thee at all? And not only so, but if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, he will say to thee, Mine is clean, but thine is unclean; and this is the reason of the house of Shammai. Immediately R. Joshua went and threw himself down at the graves of the house of Shammai, and said, I humble myself before you, O bones of the house of Shammai, and when your mysteries are so wonderful, how much more are your explicit teachings? They say that all his days his teeth were black by reason of his fasts.

it was for himself that we declared them clean, but should we declare clean the vessel whose purity is a matter which relates both to thee and to him (Kelim, x. 1)? There is a Baraitha, viz., R. Joshua said, I am ashamed of your words, ye house of Shammai. Is it possible that if a woman be kneading in a trough, and the woman become for any reason unclean, the woman and the trough are unclean for seven days, but the dough is clean? Or suppose that a bowl is full of drinkables. If for any reason the bowl becomes unclean for seven days, yet are the drinkables clean? A certain disciple, one of the disciples of the house of Shammai, joined himself to him and said to him, Shall I tell thee the reason of the house of Shammai? He said to him, Tell me. He said to him, Does an unclean vessel bar, or does it not bar? He said to him, It does not bar. Are the vessels of a common person unclean or clean? He said to him, Unclean. But if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, will he care for thee at all? And not only so, but if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, he will say to thee, Mine is clean, but thine is unclean; and this is the reason of the house of Shammai. Immediately R. Joshua went and threw himself down at the graves of the house of Shammai, and said, I humble myself before you, O bones of the house of Shammai, and when your mysteries are so wonderful, how much more are your explicit teachings? They say that all his days his teeth were black by reason of his fasts.

it was for himself that we declared them clean, but should we declare clean the vessel whose purity is a matter which relates both to thee and to him (Kelim, x. 1)? There is a Baraitha, viz., R. Joshua said, I am ashamed of your words, ye house of Shammai. Is it possible that if a woman be kneading in a trough, and the woman become for any reason unclean, the woman and the trough are unclean for seven days, but the dough is clean? Or suppose that a bowl is full of drinkables. If for any reason the bowl becomes unclean for seven days, yet are the drinkables clean? A certain disciple, one of the disciples of the house of Shammai, joined himself to him and said to him, Shall I tell thee the reason of the house of Shammai? He said to him, Tell me. He said to him, Does an unclean vessel bar, or does it not bar? He said to him, It does not bar. Are the vessels of a common person unclean or clean? He said to him, Unclean. But if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, will he care for thee at all? And not only so, but if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, he will say to thee, Mine is clean, but thine is unclean; and this is the reason of the house of Shammai. Immediately R. Joshua went and threw himself down at the graves of the house of Shammai, and said, I humble myself before you, O bones of the house of Shammai, and when your mysteries are so wonderful, how much more are your explicit teachings? They say that all his days his teeth were black by reason of his fasts.

There is a Baraitha, viz., At all events it is a matter which concerns thee as well as him; consequently we borrow them from him. But, it may be said, When we borrow them from him, we may dip them. But if so, the house of Hillel ought to have replied to the house of Shammai, When we borrow them, we dip them.

We have a canonical Mishnah elsewhere, viz., The house of Shammai and the house of Hillel agree, that we are to investigate a field in which a person is buried, for those who are keeping the Passover, but we do not investigate for those who desire to eat heave-offering (P'sachim 92b, i. 1). What is the meaning of investigate? R. Jehudah said that Samuel said, A man blows upon the unclean place as he walks along. And R. Chia bar Abba in the name of Ola said, An unclean place of this sort that is trodden is clean. For those keeping Passover they did not insist upon their decisions, as it was a case of cutting off, but for those who desired to eat heave-offering they did insist on their decisions, as it was a case of death. It was a question for them, In the case of a man who has investigated for his Passover, what about his eating his heave-offering. Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is free to eat his heave-offering, but Rabbah bar Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is forbidden to eat his heave-offering. That old man said to him, Do not thou contradict Ola's assertion, for there is a canonical Mishnah which bears him out, viz., But if he say, I have separated and put into the midst of it a fourth part of something consecrated for hallowed things, he is believed (Chag. 24b, ii. 15). Consequently, seeing that he is believed about hallowed things, he is believed also about heave-offering; and so here too, seeing that he is believed about passover, he is believed also about heave-offering.

But it was stated: Rav Yitzhak bar Yoseph said [in the name of] Rabbi Yohanan: Rebi, and Rabbi Yehudah ben Roetz, and the School of Shammai, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva, all of them hold that the pronunciation [how we actually read the word] is what matters! This is why Rebi said "and furthermore!" [He needed to give another reason because in general he does hold that pronunciation is what matters.]

But does Rebbi Yossi hold that gifts that weren't yet given are considered as if they were given? But, it was taught in a baraisa that Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yossi, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel did not argue about produce where the processing was unfinished when it passed through Jerusalem, that the maaser sheni from them can [still] be redeemed and eaten anywhere.

On what do they argue? Concerning produce which had the processing finished prior to passing through Jerusalem. That Beis Shammai say that he must return it's maaser sheni and eat it in Jerusalem. But Beis Hillel say that it can be redeemed and eaten anywhere. And if we were to conclude that gifts that weren't yet given are considered as if they were given, why the walls already encompassed [the maaser sheni, and it would have to be brought back to Jerusalem even according to Beis Hillel!?]