shammai

[With regard to] an oven which stood in a house, with its outlet curved to the outside [of the house], and those burying a corpse overshadowed it: Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the oven becomes unclean, but the house remains clean. Rabbi Akiva says: even the oven remains clean.

[With regard to] a hatch between the house and the upper story, if there was a pot placed over it and it was perforated [by a hole of sufficient size] to admit liquid: Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the pot becomes unclean but the upper story remains clean. Rabbi Akiva says: all remains clean.

If [the pot] was whole: Bet Hillel says: it protects all [from uncleanness]. Bet Shammai says: it protects only food, drink and earthenware vessels. Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.

If [the pot] was whole: Bet Hillel says: it protects all [from uncleanness]. Bet Shammai says: it protects only food, drink and earthenware vessels. Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.

[With regard to] a flagon that is full of pure liquid, the flagon is defiled with seven days' impurity but the liquid remains clean. But if one poured it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. If a woman was kneading [in the upper story] at a trough, the woman and the trough become unclean with seven days impurity, but the dough remains clean But if one turned it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.

If a corpse is in a house in which there are many doors, they all become unclean. If one of them was opened, that one becomes unclean but all the rest remain clean. If he intended to carry out the corpse through one of them or through a window of four hand breadths square, he protects all the other doors. Bet Shammai says: the intention must have been formed before the person died. Bet Hillel say: even after he died. If [a door] was blocked up and it was decided to open it: Bet Shammai says: [it is effective] as soon he opens a [a space] four handbreadths square. Bet Hillel says: as soon as [the process] has begun. They agree, however, that when making an opening for the first time, four handbreadths must be opened up.

If a corpse is in a house in which there are many doors, they all become unclean. If one of them was opened, that one becomes unclean but all the rest remain clean. If he intended to carry out the corpse through one of them or through a window of four hand breadths square, he protects all the other doors. Bet Shammai says: the intention must have been formed before the person died. Bet Hillel say: even after he died. If [a door] was blocked up and it was decided to open it: Bet Shammai says: [it is effective] as soon he opens a [a space] four handbreadths square. Bet Hillel says: as soon as [the process] has begun. They agree, however, that when making an opening for the first time, four handbreadths must be opened up.

A house, which has been split [into two]: If there is uncleanness in the outer [part], vessels in the inner [part] remain clean. If the uncleanness is in the inner [part], vessels in the outer [are clean]: Bet Shammai says: when the split is four handbreadths wide; But Bet Hillel says: [when the split is of] any size. Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Hillel: [when it is] one handbreadth wide.

A thick woolen jacket or a thick wooden block does not bring uncleanness until they are one handbreadth high off the ground. If [garments] are folded one above the other they do not bring uncleanness until the uppermost is one handbreadth high off the ground. If a person were placed there [under the split in the portico]: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring the uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: a person is hollow and his uppermost side brings the uncleanness.

If a person was looking out of a window and overshadowed a funeral procession: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: he does bring the uncleanness. They agree that if he was dressed in his clothes or if there were two persons, one above the other, they bring the uncleanness.

If a person was lying on the threshold and the funeral procession overshadowed him: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring the uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: he does bring the uncleanness.

[In the case] where the uncleanness was in the house and clean persons overshadowed him: Bet Shammai declares them clean, But Bet Hillel declares them unclean.

A cellar in a house with a candlestick in it, whose calyx protrudes and an olive-basket is placed such that if the candlestick was taken away the olive-basket would still remain over the mouth of the cellar: Bet Shammai says: the cellar remains clean but the candlestick becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the candlestick also remains clean. But they agree that if the olive-basket would fall [into the cellar] if the candlestick was removed, all would become unclean.

One who makes a new light hole, its minimum size is that of a hole made by the large drill of the Temple chamber. The remains of a light-hole [the size is] two fingerbreadths high by a thumb-breadth broad. The following is considered the remains of a light-hole: a window that a person had blocked up but had not been able to finish [being blocked up]. [A hole] that was bored by water, or by reptiles or eaten away by salt: the minimum size is that of a fist. If he intended to use it, its minimum size is one handbreadth square; For lighting its minimum size is that of a hole made by the drill. The holes in grating or lattice-work may be joined together to form [an opening] the size of a hole made by the drill, according to the opinion of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: unless there is a hole of the size made by the drill in one place. [The above applies] for purposes of allowing the uncleanness to come in or to go out. Rabbi Shimon says: only for allowing the uncleanness to come in; but for allowing the uncleanness to go out [the minimum size] is one handbreadth square.

One who makes a place for a rod, for tongs, or a lamp, the minimum size is whatever is needful, according to the word of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: one handbreadth square. [If it was made] for a peep-hole, for speaking through to his fellow, or for [human] use, the minimum size is one handbreadth square.

[With regard to] the courtyard of a tomb: A person standing in it remains clean as long as there is a space of four cubits square, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: four handbreadths. [With regard to] a roof beam which had been used as a covering stone for a tomb, whether it is standing upright or lying on its side, nothing becomes unclean except what [touches] opposite the opening of the grave. If the end [of the beam] were made the covering stone of a grave, only [that part] up to four handbreadths [from the grave] becomes unclean. [This applies] when [the beam] is going to be cut. Rabbi Judah says: all the beam is connected.

How does one harvest the grapes of a bet peras? They sprinkle [hatat water] on the harvesters and the vessels [once] and then a second time. Then they harvest the grapes and take them out of the bet peras. Others then receive [the grapes] and take them to the winepress. If the latter set [of persons] came into contact with the former, they become unclean, This is according to the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: [the gatherer] holds the sickle with sinew-rope, or harvests the grapes with a sharp flint, lets [the grapes fall] into a basket, and then he takes [them] to the winepress. Rabbi Yose said: When do these rules apply? [Only] in the case of a vineyard which subsequently became a bet peras; but a person who plants [vines] in a bet peras must sell [the grapes] in the market.

A kokhin field may neither be planted nor sown, but its earth is regarded as clean and ovens may be made of it for holy use. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that it [a bet peras in which a grave was plowed over] is examined for one who wished to perform the pesah sacrifice,but is not examined for one who wants to eat terumah. And as for a nazirite: Bet Shammai say: it is examined, But Bet Hillel say: it is not examined. How does he examine it? He brings earth that he can move, and places it into a sieve with fine meshes, and crumbles. If a bone of barley-corn size is found there [the person passing through the field] is deemed unclean.

A kokhin field may neither be planted nor sown, but its earth is regarded as clean and ovens may be made of it for holy use. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that it [a bet peras in which a grave was plowed over] is examined for one who wished to perform the pesah sacrifice,but is not examined for one who wants to eat terumah. And as for a nazirite: Bet Shammai say: it is examined, But Bet Hillel say: it is not examined. How does he examine it? He brings earth that he can move, and places it into a sieve with fine meshes, and crumbles. If a bone of barley-corn size is found there [the person passing through the field] is deemed unclean.

What do they examine? Deep drains and foul-smelling waters. Bet Shammai say: even garbage dumps and crumbled earth. Bet Hillel say: any place where a pig or a weasel can go requires no examination.

The lid of a kettle which is joined to a chain: Bet Shammai say: these are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Bet Hillel say: if he sprinkled on the kettle, it is the same as if the lid also was sprinkled upon; but if he sprinkled on the lid only it is not the same as if the kettle also was sprinkled upon. All are eligible to sprinkle, except a tumtum, a hermaphrodite, a woman, and a child that is without understanding. A woman may assist [a man] while he sprinkles, and hold the water for him while he dips and sprinkles. If she held his hand, even if only at the time of sprinkling, it is invalid.

At what stage do olives become susceptible to uncleanness? When they exude the moisture [produced] by [their lying in] the vat but not the one [produced while they are still] in the basket, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Rabbi Shimon says: the minimum time prescribed for proper exudation is three days. Bet Hillel says: as soon as three olives stick together. Rabban Gamaliel says: as soon as their preparation is finished, and the sages agree with his view.

One who put his olives in a basket that they might be softened so that they will be easy to press, they become susceptible to uncleanness; [If he put them in a basket] to be softened so that they may be salted: Bet Shammai says: they become susceptible. Bet Hillel says: they do not become susceptible. One who splits his olives with unwashed hands, he causes them to be unclean.

If one wants to take from them [a quantity sufficient for] one pressing or for two pressings: Bet Shammai says: he may scrape off [what he requires] in a condition of uncleanness, but he must cover up [what he takes] in a condition of cleanness. Bet Hillel says: he may also cover it up in a condition of uncleanness. Rabbi Yose says: he may dig out [what he requires] with metal axes and carry it to the press in a condition of uncleanness.

One who puts his grapes [into the wine-press] from the baskets or from what was spread out on the ground: Bet Shammai says: he must put them in with clean hands, and if he puts them in with unclean hands he defiles them. Bet Hillel says: he may put them in with unclean hands and then he may set aside his terumah in a condition of cleanness. [If they are taken] from the grape-pot or from what was spread out on leaves, all agree that they must be put in with clean hands, and if they are put in with unclean hands they become unclean.

When do they become clean? Bet Shammai say: when their contents have been increased [by more than the original quantity] and they overflow. Bet Hillel say: when their contents have been increased [by more than their original quantity] even if they do not overflow. Rabbi Shimon says: when they overflow although their contents have not been so increased. [These] are valid [for preparing dough] for hallah and for the washing of the hands.

If one put vessels under a water-spout, whether they be large vessels or small vessels or even vessels of dung, vessels of stone or earthen vessels, they make the mikveh invalid. It is all alike whether they were put there [purposely] or were [merely] forgotten, the words of Bet Shammai. But Bet Hillel declare it clean in the case of one who forgets. Rabbi Meir said: they voted and Bet Shammai had a majority over Bet Hillel. Yet they agree in the case of one who forgets [and leaves vessels] in a courtyard that the mikveh remains clean. Rabbi Yose said: the controversy still remains as it was.

If one put vessels under a water-spout, whether they be large vessels or small vessels or even vessels of dung, vessels of stone or earthen vessels, they make the mikveh invalid. It is all alike whether they were put there [purposely] or were [merely] forgotten, the words of Bet Shammai. But Bet Hillel declare it clean in the case of one who forgets. Rabbi Meir said: they voted and Bet Shammai had a majority over Bet Hillel. Yet they agree in the case of one who forgets [and leaves vessels] in a courtyard that the mikveh remains clean. Rabbi Yose said: the controversy still remains as it was.

In the case of a trough in a rock: One may not fill up [the hatat waters] from it, nor may the [hatat waters] be consecrated in it, nor may one sprinkle from it. And it does not require a tightly stopped-up covering, And it does not invalidate the mikveh. If it was a vessel and had been joined to the ground with lime: One may fill up the hatat waters from it and the hatat waters may be consecrated in it, and one may sprinkle from it, And it requires a tightly stopped-up covering; And it invalidates the mikveh invalid. If a hole was made in it below or at the side so that it could not contain water in however small a quantity, it is valid. And how large must the hole be? Like the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Yehudah ben Batera said: it happened in the case of the trough of Yehu in Jerusalem that there was a hole in it like the tube of a water-skin, all the pure things in Jerusalem were made using it. But Bet Shammai sent and broke it down, for Bet Shammai say: [it remains a vessel] unless the greater part of it is broken down.

In the case of a trough in a rock: One may not fill up [the hatat waters] from it, nor may the [hatat waters] be consecrated in it, nor may one sprinkle from it. And it does not require a tightly stopped-up covering, And it does not invalidate the mikveh. If it was a vessel and had been joined to the ground with lime: One may fill up the hatat waters from it and the hatat waters may be consecrated in it, and one may sprinkle from it, And it requires a tightly stopped-up covering; And it invalidates the mikveh invalid. If a hole was made in it below or at the side so that it could not contain water in however small a quantity, it is valid. And how large must the hole be? Like the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Yehudah ben Batera said: it happened in the case of the trough of Yehu in Jerusalem that there was a hole in it like the tube of a water-skin, all the pure things in Jerusalem were made using it. But Bet Shammai sent and broke it down, for Bet Shammai say: [it remains a vessel] unless the greater part of it is broken down.

If a wave was separated [from the sea] and was forty seahs, and it fell on a man or on vessels, they become clean. Any place containing forty seahs is valid for immersing oneself and for immersing other things. One may immerse in trenches or in ditches or even in a donkey-track whose water is connected in a valley. Bet Shammai say: one may immerse in a rain torrent. But Bet Hillel say: one may not immerse. They agree that one may block its flow with vessels and immerse oneself in it, but the vessels with which the flow is blocked are not thereby [validly] immersed.

Bet Shammai say: hot water may not be immersed in cold, or cold in hot, foul in fresh or fresh in foul. But Bet Hillel say: it may be immersed. A vessel full of liquids which one immersed, it is as if it has not been immersed. If it was full of urine, this is reckoned as water. If it contained hatat waters, [it is unclean] unless the water [of the mikveh which enters the vessel] exceeds the hatat waters. Rabbi Yose says: even if a vessel with the capacity of a kor contains but a quarter-log, it is as if it had not been immersed.

Shammai says: for all women it suffices [to reckon] their [period of uncleanness from their time [of discovering the flow]. Hillel ruled: [their period of uncleanness is to be reckoned retroactively] from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, even if this was many days. The sages say: [the law is] not like the words of these or the words of those, but [the women are deemed to have been unclean] during [the preceding] twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, and during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours. For any woman who has a regular period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. And if a woman uses rags when she has marital intercourse, this is like an examination which lessens either the period of the [past] twenty-four hours or the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination.

All women are in the presumption of being pure for their husband. For those who return from a journey, their wives are in the presumption of being pure. Bet Shammai says: a woman needs two testing-rags for every time she has intercourse, or she must have relations in the light of a lamp. Bet Hillel says: two testing-rags suffice her for the whole night.

Five kinds of blood in a woman are unclean: red, black, like bright crocus, like earthy water, or like diluted wine. Bet Shammai says: also like fenugreek water or the juice of roasted meat. But Bet Hillel declares these clean. One that is yellow: Akavia ben Mahalalel declares unclean And the sages declare clean. Rabbi Meir said: even if it does not convey uncleanness as a bloodstain it conveys uncleanness as a liquid. Rabbi Yose says: it does neither the one nor the other.

The blood of a Gentile and the clean blood of a metzoraat (a woman with scale disease): Bet Shammai declares clean. And Bet Hillel holds that it is like her spittle or her urine. The blood of a woman after childbirth who did not immerse [in a mikveh]: Bet Shammai says it is like her spittle or her urine, But Bet Hillel says: it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry. They agree that if she gave birth while in zivah, it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry.

The blood of a Gentile and the clean blood of a metzoraat (a woman with scale disease): Bet Shammai declares clean. And Bet Hillel holds that it is like her spittle or her urine. The blood of a woman after childbirth who did not immerse [in a mikveh]: Bet Shammai says it is like her spittle or her urine, But Bet Hillel says: it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry. They agree that if she gave birth while in zivah, it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry.

If a woman at the age of twenty did not bring forth two hairs, she must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age and she is an aylonit, she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. If a man at the age of twenty years did not produce two hairs, he must bring evidence that he is twenty years old and he becomes confirmed as a saris and he doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum, the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: with both of them at the age of eighteen. Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of the male, according to the words of Bet Hillel, while in that of the female, in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai, since a woman matures earlier than a man.

If a woman at the age of twenty did not bring forth two hairs, she must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age and she is an aylonit, she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. If a man at the age of twenty years did not produce two hairs, he must bring evidence that he is twenty years old and he becomes confirmed as a saris and he doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum, the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: with both of them at the age of eighteen. Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of the male, according to the words of Bet Hillel, while in that of the female, in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai, since a woman matures earlier than a man.

If a young girl, whose age of menstruation has not arrived, married: Bet Shammai says: she is allowed four nights; And Bet Hillel says: until the wound is healed. If the age of her menstruation has arrived and she married: Bet Shammai says: she is allowed the first night; And Bet Hillel says: four nights, until after Shabbat. If she had observed blood while she was still in her father's house: Bet Shammai ruled: she is only allowed the obligatory marital intercourse, And Bet Hillel says: all that night.

If a young girl, whose age of menstruation has not arrived, married: Bet Shammai says: she is allowed four nights; And Bet Hillel says: until the wound is healed. If the age of her menstruation has arrived and she married: Bet Shammai says: she is allowed the first night; And Bet Hillel says: four nights, until after Shabbat. If she had observed blood while she was still in her father's house: Bet Shammai ruled: she is only allowed the obligatory marital intercourse, And Bet Hillel says: all that night.

If a young girl, whose age of menstruation has not arrived, married: Bet Shammai says: she is allowed four nights; And Bet Hillel says: until the wound is healed. If the age of her menstruation has arrived and she married: Bet Shammai says: she is allowed the first night; And Bet Hillel says: four nights, until after Shabbat. If she had observed blood while she was still in her father's house: Bet Shammai ruled: she is only allowed the obligatory marital intercourse, And Bet Hillel says: all that night.

If a zav, a zavah, a niddah, a woman after childbirth or a metzora have died [their corpses] they convey uncleanness by being carried until the flesh has decayed. If a non-Jew has died he does not convey uncleanness. Bet Shammai says: all women die as niddot. But Bet Hillel says: a woman is not regarded as a niddah unless she died while she was in menstruation.

In earlier times they used to say: a woman who is dwelling in clean blood may pour out water for [washing] the pesah sacrifice. They changed their minds and said: in respect of consecrated food she is like one who came in contact with a person that was subject to corpse uncleanness, this is according to the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: even as one who is subject to corpse uncleanness.

But they agree that she may eat second tithe. And she may set aside her hallah, bring it near to the dough and call it by its name. And if any of her spit or her pure blood fell on a loaf of terumah it remains clean. Bet Shammai says: she requires immersion at the end [of her days of purification], Bet Hillel says: she does not require immersion at the end.

If a woman observed a discharge on the eleventh day and immersed in the evening and then had marital intercourse: Bet Shammai say: they defile a couch and a seat and they are liable to a sacrifice But Bet Hillel says: they are exempt from the sacrifice. If she immersed on the next day and then had marital intercourse and after that observed a discharge: Bet Shammai say: they convey uncleanness to couch and seat and are exempt from the sacrifice, But Bet Hillel says: such a person is a glutton. They agree that if a woman observed a discharge during the eleven days and immersed in the evening and then had intercourse that both (she and defile couch and seat and are liable to a sacrifice. If she immersed on the next day and then had intercourse, such an act is improper conduct, but the uncleanness of their contact and their liability to a sacrifice on account of their intercourse are in suspense.

If a woman observed a discharge on the eleventh day and immersed in the evening and then had marital intercourse: Bet Shammai say: they defile a couch and a seat and they are liable to a sacrifice But Bet Hillel says: they are exempt from the sacrifice. If she immersed on the next day and then had marital intercourse and after that observed a discharge: Bet Shammai say: they convey uncleanness to couch and seat and are exempt from the sacrifice, But Bet Hillel says: such a person is a glutton. They agree that if a woman observed a discharge during the eleven days and immersed in the evening and then had intercourse that both (she and defile couch and seat and are liable to a sacrifice. If she immersed on the next day and then had intercourse, such an act is improper conduct, but the uncleanness of their contact and their liability to a sacrifice on account of their intercourse are in suspense.

If one shook a tree in order to cause food or something unclean to fall down from it, [the rain water dropping down from it] does not come under the law of ‘if water be put.' If [he shook the tree] in order to cause liquids to fall down from it: Bet Shammai says: both [the liquids] that fall down and [the liquids] that remain [on the tree] come under the law of ‘if water be put.' But Bet Hillel say: [the liquids] that fall down come under the law of ‘if water be put’, but [the liquids] that remain [on the tree] do not come under the law of ‘if water be put,' because his intention was that [the liquids] should drop down from all the tree.

If one shook a tree and it fell on another tree, or a branch and it fell on another branch, and under them were seeds or vegetables [still] joined to the ground: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. R. Joshua said in the name of Abba Yose Holikofri a man of Tivon: Be surprised if there is any liquid that according to the Torah causes susceptibility to uncleanness except one put it on with intention, for it is said: "If water be put upon the seed."

If one shook a bundle of vegetables and [water] dropped down from the upper [side] to the lower [side]: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: if one shakes a stalk, do we fear lest water drops from one leaf on the other leaf? Bet Shammai said to them: a stalk is only one, but a bundle has many stalks. Bet Hillel said to them: behold, if one lifted a sack full of produce and put it beside the river, do we fear lest water drops from the upper [side] to the lower [side]? But if he lifted two sacks and placed them one upon the other, the lower [sack] comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Yose says: the lower [sack] remains insusceptible to uncleanness.

If one shook a bundle of vegetables and [water] dropped down from the upper [side] to the lower [side]: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: if one shakes a stalk, do we fear lest water drops from one leaf on the other leaf? Bet Shammai said to them: a stalk is only one, but a bundle has many stalks. Bet Hillel said to them: behold, if one lifted a sack full of produce and put it beside the river, do we fear lest water drops from the upper [side] to the lower [side]? But if he lifted two sacks and placed them one upon the other, the lower [sack] comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Yose says: the lower [sack] remains insusceptible to uncleanness.

If one shook a bundle of vegetables and [water] dropped down from the upper [side] to the lower [side]: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: if one shakes a stalk, do we fear lest water drops from one leaf on the other leaf? Bet Shammai said to them: a stalk is only one, but a bundle has many stalks. Bet Hillel said to them: behold, if one lifted a sack full of produce and put it beside the river, do we fear lest water drops from the upper [side] to the lower [side]? But if he lifted two sacks and placed them one upon the other, the lower [sack] comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Yose says: the lower [sack] remains insusceptible to uncleanness.

A jar into which a leak [from a roof] fell: Bet Shammai say: it should be broken. But Bet Hillel say: it may be emptied out. But they agree that one may put out his hand and take produce from it and they are insusceptible to uncleanness.

A tub into which a leak [from a roof] fell, the water which splashed out or ran over does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water: Bet Shammai say: it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one placed the tub in order that the leak [from the roof] should fall into it: Bet Shammai say: the water that splashes out or runs over comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water, both agree that it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one immersed vessels or washed his garment in a cavern, the water that came up on his hands comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; but what came up on his feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Elazar says: if it was not possible for him to go down into the cavern without soiling his feet, what came up on his feet also comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.

A tub into which a leak [from a roof] fell, the water which splashed out or ran over does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water: Bet Shammai say: it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one placed the tub in order that the leak [from the roof] should fall into it: Bet Shammai say: the water that splashes out or runs over comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water, both agree that it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one immersed vessels or washed his garment in a cavern, the water that came up on his hands comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; but what came up on his feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Elazar says: if it was not possible for him to go down into the cavern without soiling his feet, what came up on his feet also comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.

A flow pouring [from one vessel to another] is clean, except [the flow] of honey of ziphim bees and honey batter. Bet Shammai say: also [the flow of] thick pottage of split beans, because it thickens up backwards.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes a day for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes a day for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes a day for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes a day for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.

If one sees an issue of semen on the third day of counting his zov: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; But Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Rabbi Ishmael says: one who sees it on the second day, it undoes the preceding day. But Rabbi Akiva says: it matters not whether he saw it on the second day or on the third day: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; And Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. But they agree that if he saw it on the fourth day [of counting] it undoes only that day. This is if he saw semen; but he saw zov, then even if this had occurred on the seventh day, it undoes all the days that had preceded.

If one sees an issue of semen on the third day of counting his zov: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; But Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Rabbi Ishmael says: one who sees it on the second day, it undoes the preceding day. But Rabbi Akiva says: it matters not whether he saw it on the second day or on the third day: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; And Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. But they agree that if he saw it on the fourth day [of counting] it undoes only that day. This is if he saw semen; but he saw zov, then even if this had occurred on the seventh day, it undoes all the days that had preceded.

If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of rice): Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.

If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of rice): Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.

A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward" (Numbers 10:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward", defiles the hands. All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet. Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.

Unripe figs or grapes: Rabbi Akiva says: they convey food uncleanness; Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [this is only] when they have reached the season when they are liable to tithes. Olives and grapes that have hardened: Bet Shammai says: they are susceptible to uncleanness, Bet Hillel says: they are insusceptible. Black cumin: Bet Shammai says: is not susceptible, Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible. Similarly [they dispute with regard to their liability to] tithes.

Unripe figs or grapes: Rabbi Akiva says: they convey food uncleanness; Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [this is only] when they have reached the season when they are liable to tithes. Olives and grapes that have hardened: Bet Shammai says: they are susceptible to uncleanness, Bet Hillel says: they are insusceptible. Black cumin: Bet Shammai says: is not susceptible, Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible. Similarly [they dispute with regard to their liability to] tithes.

When do fish become susceptible to uncleanness? Bet Shammai say: after they have been caught. Bet Hillel say: only after they are dead. Rabbi Akiva says: if they can still live. If a branch of a fig tree was broken off, but it was still attached by its bark: Rabbi Judah says: [the fruit] is still not susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages say: [it all depends] whether they could still live. Grain that had been uprooted, but is still attached to the soil even by the smallest of roots, is not susceptible to uncleanness.

When do honeycombs become susceptible to uncleanness on account of their being regarded as liquids? Bet Shammai says: from the moment he begins to smoke the bees out. But Bet Hillel says: once he breaks up the honeycomb.

MISHNAH: The school of Shammai say: In the evening, everyone must bend down and recite and in the morning they should stand up since it is said (Deut. 6:7): “when you sit in your house or go on the road, when you are lying down and when you are getting up.” But the school of Hillel say: everyone should recite in the position he is in, since it says “or go on the road.” In that case, why does it say: “when you are lying down and when you are getting up;” this means the time when people go to sleep and the time when they are getting up.

HALAKHAH: They of the school of Hillel are able to explain both parts of the verse. How do those of the school of Shammai explain “when you sit in your house or go on the road”? “When you sit in your house”, to exclude those who are occupied with other religious commandments, “or go on the road” to exclude bridegrooms.

We have stated: It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Ismael stayed at the same place and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was reclining while Rebbi Ismael was standing. When the time for the recital of the Shema‘ arrived did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah stand and Rebbi Ismael reclined. Rebbi Eleazar said to Rebbi Ismael, this is as when one says to someone in the market place, your beard is overgrown, and he says, that is against those who shave. I, who was reclining, stood up and you, who were standing, went on to recline. He answered him: You stood up following the school of Shammai, I reclined following the school of Hillel. Another explanation: That the students should not see me and make it the permanent practice to follow the school of Shammai.

We have stated: It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Ismael stayed at the same place and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was reclining while Rebbi Ismael was standing. When the time for the recital of the Shema‘ arrived did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah stand and Rebbi Ismael reclined. Rebbi Eleazar said to Rebbi Ismael, this is as when one says to someone in the market place, your beard is overgrown, and he says, that is against those who shave. I, who was reclining, stood up and you, who were standing, went on to recline. He answered him: You stood up following the school of Shammai, I reclined following the school of Hillel. Another explanation: That the students should not see me and make it the permanent practice to follow the school of Shammai.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Ṭarphon said: I was on the road and reclined to recite the Shema‘ following the school of Shammai. There I put myself in danger because of the robbers. They told him: It would have served you right to be in mortal danger since you transgressed the words of the school of Hillel.

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

It is stated: One removes himself from human excrement four cubits and from dog’s excrement four cubits, the latter when it is given on skins. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: One must remove hinself four cubits from a stinking carcass. Rebbi Avina said: Does not the Mishnah say all this : “How much does one have to remove himself from these and excrement? Four cubits.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Shammai: Explain it by steeping water of launderers. Rebbi Mani said to him: About steeping waters of launderers, we have stated: “neither with stinking water nor with steeping water.”

MISHNAH: If one recited the benediction on wine before the meal, he also covers wine after the meal. If one recited the benediction on little pieces before the meal, he also covers little pieces after the meal. If one recited the benediction on bread, he also covers little pieces; if one recited the benediction on little pieces, he did not cover bread; the House of Shammai say, neither did he cover cooked food.

Marinos, the son of Rebbi Joshua said: He who ate dessert and cereal, even though he recites a benediction on the dessert at the end, he did not cover cereal. Is he like the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “neither cooked food?” Rebbi Yose said, this is everybody’s opinion. If one recited the benediction on bread, he also covers little pieces and cooked food; the House of Shammai say, neither did he cover cooked food. But if one first recited the benediction over little pieces, everybody agrees that he covered neither bread nor cooked food. Rebbi Abba, the son of Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: He who ate cereal and he has the intention of later eating bread, does he have to recite a separate benediction for cereal at the end? The rabbis of Caesarea find it obvious that he has to recite a separate benediction at the end.

Marinos, the son of Rebbi Joshua said: He who ate dessert and cereal, even though he recites a benediction on the dessert at the end, he did not cover cereal. Is he like the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “neither cooked food?” Rebbi Yose said, this is everybody’s opinion. If one recited the benediction on bread, he also covers little pieces and cooked food; the House of Shammai say, neither did he cover cooked food. But if one first recited the benediction over little pieces, everybody agrees that he covered neither bread nor cooked food. Rebbi Abba, the son of Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: He who ate cereal and he has the intention of later eating bread, does he have to recite a separate benediction for cereal at the end? The rabbis of Caesarea find it obvious that he has to recite a separate benediction at the end.

Marinos, the son of Rebbi Joshua said: He who ate dessert and cereal, even though he recites a benediction on the dessert at the end, he did not cover cereal. Is he like the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “neither cooked food?” Rebbi Yose said, this is everybody’s opinion. If one recited the benediction on bread, he also covers little pieces and cooked food; the House of Shammai say, neither did he cover cooked food. But if one first recited the benediction over little pieces, everybody agrees that he covered neither bread nor cooked food. Rebbi Abba, the son of Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: He who ate cereal and he has the intention of later eating bread, does he have to recite a separate benediction for cereal at the end? The rabbis of Caesarea find it obvious that he has to recite a separate benediction at the end.

MISHNAH: These are the matters between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel about meals. The House of Shammai say, one pronounces the benediction of the day and then the one over wine. But the House of Hillel say, one pronounces the benediction over wine and aftewards the one of the day.

MISHNAH: These are the matters between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel about meals. The House of Shammai say, one pronounces the benediction of the day and then the one over wine. But the House of Hillel say, one pronounces the benediction over wine and aftewards the one of the day.

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

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

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

It is difficult in the opinion of the House of Shammai, how to proceed on Friday evening if someone was sitting and eating on Friday afternoon, it got dark, and there was only one cup of wine? You must say that he reserves the cup until after the recitation of Grace and includes all other benedictions. Obviously, if he would want to pronounce the benediction for the day, Grace has precedence. If he wants to recite the benediction over wine, the day has precedence. One may infer this from the following (Mishnah 8:9): “If wine was brought to them after the meal and there was only one cup.” Rebbi Abba said: Because it is a very short benediction, he might forget and drink. But here, he connects everything with the cup of wine and he will not forget. How should he proceed according to the House of Shammai? He should recite Grace first, after that he makes Qidddush, and only after that he recites the benediction over the wine.

It is difficult in the opinion of the House of Shammai, how to proceed on Friday evening if someone was sitting and eating on Friday afternoon, it got dark, and there was only one cup of wine? You must say that he reserves the cup until after the recitation of Grace and includes all other benedictions. Obviously, if he would want to pronounce the benediction for the day, Grace has precedence. If he wants to recite the benediction over wine, the day has precedence. One may infer this from the following (Mishnah 8:9): “If wine was brought to them after the meal and there was only one cup.” Rebbi Abba said: Because it is a very short benediction, he might forget and drink. But here, he connects everything with the cup of wine and he will not forget. How should he proceed according to the House of Shammai? He should recite Grace first, after that he makes Qidddush, and only after that he recites the benediction over the wine.

It is difficult in the opinion of the House of Hillel, how may one proceed at the end of the Sabbath if someone was sitting and eating on Sabbath, it got dark, and there was only one cup of wine? You say, he reserves it until after the meal and connects everything to it. What can you say? Shall he recite the benediction for the wine, Grace has precedence. Shall he recite Grace, the light has precedence. Shall he recite for the light, Havdalah has precedence. We may infer from the following: “Rebbi Yehudah said, the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel do not disagree that Grace comes first and Havdalah at the end. They disagree only over light and spices because the House of Shammai say spices and afterwards light, but the house of Hillel say light and afterwards spices.” Rebbi Abba and Rav Jehudah: Practice follows him who says spices and afterwards light. What should he do following the opinion of the House of Hillel? He should say Grace first, afterwards he should recite the benediction over wine and afterwards Havdalah.

It is difficult in the opinion of the House of Hillel, how may one proceed at the end of the Sabbath if someone was sitting and eating on Sabbath, it got dark, and there was only one cup of wine? You say, he reserves it until after the meal and connects everything to it. What can you say? Shall he recite the benediction for the wine, Grace has precedence. Shall he recite Grace, the light has precedence. Shall he recite for the light, Havdalah has precedence. We may infer from the following: “Rebbi Yehudah said, the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel do not disagree that Grace comes first and Havdalah at the end. They disagree only over light and spices because the House of Shammai say spices and afterwards light, but the house of Hillel say light and afterwards spices.” Rebbi Abba and Rav Jehudah: Practice follows him who says spices and afterwards light. What should he do following the opinion of the House of Hillel? He should say Grace first, afterwards he should recite the benediction over wine and afterwards Havdalah.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say that one washes his hands and after that he mixes the cup, but the House of Hillel say that one mixes the cup first and then he washes his hands.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of the House of Shammai? The fluids on the back of the cup should not become impure from his hands and in their turn defile the cup.

Rebbi Vivan in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: It turns out that the House of Shammai is consistent with Rebbi Yose and the House of Hillel with Rebbi Meïr, since we have stated there (Mishnah Kelim 25:7): “Rebbi Meïr said, for impure and pure hands. Rebbi Yose said, they spoke only about pure hands.”

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one dries his hands with a towel and puts the latter on the table; the House of Hillel say, on the pillow.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah deals with a table of marble or one of parts screwed together that cannot become impure. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? That the fluids on the towel should not become impure from the pillow and in turn defile his hands.

Do the House of Shammai hold that “hands” are for profane food? Explain it either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or following Rebbi Eleazar, son of Rebbi Ẓadoq. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar as it has been stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are primarily impure for profane food and secondarily for terumah.” Or following Rebbi Eleazar, son of Rebbi Ẓadoq, as we have stated there: “Profane food that was prepared under the rules of purity of sacrifices is still profane food. Rebbi Eleazar, the son of Rebbi Ẓadoq said, it is like terumah becoming impure in two stages and unusable in a third.”

There (Mishnah Idiut 4:6) we have stated: “Someone who rubbed himself with pure oil, then he became impure, he descended and immersed himself. The House of Shammai say, he is pure even if it drips, but the House of Hillel say impure. But if the oil was impure to start out with, the House of Shammai say, up to the anointing of a small limb; but the House of Hillel say, moist fluid. Rebbi Yehudah says in the name of the House of Hillel, moist and making moist.” The opinions of the House of Hillel are reversed! There they say “impure” and here they say “pure.” There it is visible, here it is absorbed in the towel.

There (Mishnah Idiut 4:6) we have stated: “Someone who rubbed himself with pure oil, then he became impure, he descended and immersed himself. The House of Shammai say, he is pure even if it drips, but the House of Hillel say impure. But if the oil was impure to start out with, the House of Shammai say, up to the anointing of a small limb; but the House of Hillel say, moist fluid. Rebbi Yehudah says in the name of the House of Hillel, moist and making moist.” The opinions of the House of Hillel are reversed! There they say “impure” and here they say “pure.” There it is visible, here it is absorbed in the towel.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one sweeps the house and after that one washes his hands. But the House of Hillel say, one washes his hands and after that he sweeps the house.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Because of loss of food. But what is the reason of the House of Hillel? If the waiter is intelligent he removes the leftovers, even less than the volume of an olive; then one may wash his hands and after that sweep the house.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say: Light, Grace, spices and Havdalah. But the House of Hillel say, Light, spices, Grace, and Havdalah. The House of Shammai say: “He Who created illumination by fire.” But the House of Hillel say, “He Who is creating illuminations by fire.”