12. In these things the School of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to the opinion of the School of Shammai: If8 a woman returned from beyond the sea and said, ‘My husband is dead’, she may marry again; [and if she said,] ‘My husband died [childless]’, she may contract levirate marriage. So the School of Shammai. And the School of Hillel say: We have heard no such tradition save of a woman that returned from the harvest. The School of Shammai answered: It is all one whether she re¬ turned from the harvest or from the olive-picking or from beyond the sea: they spoke of the harvest only as of a thing that happened in fact. The School of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to the opinion of the School of Shammai. The School of Shammai say: She may marry 1 Men and vessels become unclean if they are beneath the same roof as the bones, or if they are directly above or below them. Cf. p. 649, n. 3.
J Lit. 'building’; i.e. those bones which go towards forming the greater part of the stature. ♦ M.Sh. z‘. s M.Sh. 2'. » M.Sh. 2*. ’ Kel. 22*. * Cf. Yeb. is1*.
424 FOURTH DIVISION: NEZIKIN again and take her Kctubah. And the School of Hillel say: She may marry again but she may not take her Ketubah. The School of Shammai answered: Since ye have declared permissible the graver matter of forbidden inter¬ course, should ye not also declare permissible the less important matter of property? The School of Hillel said to them: We find that brothers may not enter into an inheritance on her testimony. The School of Shammai answered: Do we not learn from her Ketubah- scroll that he thus prescribes for her, ‘If thou be married to another thou shalt take what is prescribed for thee’? The School of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to the opinion of the School of Shammai.
13. If1 a man was half bondman and half freedman, he should labour one day for his master and one day for himself. So the School of Hillel. The School of Shammai say: Ye have ordered it well for his master, but for him ye have not ordered it well: [thus] he cannot marry a bondwoman nor can he marry a free woman; shall he remain fruitless? And wras not the world only created for fruition and increase, as it is written, He created it not a waste: he formed it to be inhabited? But as a precaution for the general good they should compel his master and he sets him free, and the bondman writes him a bond of indebtedness for half his value. The School of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to the opinion of the School of Shammai.
14. An earthenware vessel2 can protect aught [that is within it from con¬ tracting unclean ness from a corpse that is under the same roof]. So the School of Hillel. And the School of Shammai say: It can protect only foodstuffs and liquids and [other] earthenware vessels.3 The School of Hillel said: Why? The school of Shammai said: Because with an Am- haaretz 4 it is susceptible to uncleanness, and a vessel that is susceptible to uncleanness cannot interpose [to protect from uncleanness]. The School of Hillel answered: But have ye not pronounced the foodstuffs and liquids therein clean? The School of Shammai said to them: When we pro¬ nounced the foodstuffs and liquids therein clean, we pronounced them clean for himself5 [alone]; but when thou declarest the vessel clean thou declarest it so for thyself6 as well as for him. The School of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to the opinion of the School of Shammai.
2. 1. R. Hanina the Prefect of the Priests testified concerning four things. The priests7 never refrained from burning flesh that had become unclean from a derived uncleanness8 together with flesh that had become unclean from a primary uncleanness, although they thereby added uncleanness to its uncleanness. Moreover R. Akiba said: The priests never refrained from burning in a lamp rendered unclean by one that had contracted corpse uncleanness, oil that was rendered unfit by one that had immersed himself 5 i.e. for such a one as an Am-haaretz.
6 i.e. that it is such that even thou, an ‘Associate’ (Dem. 23), couldst take it and use it.
8 The source of uncleanness is called ‘Father of uncleanness’ (i.e. a primary uncleanness) what is rendered unclean by it is called ‘Offspring of uncleanness’ (i.e. a derived unclean¬ ness). What is rendered unclean at first hand by a ‘Father of uncleanness’ suffers ‘first- grade uncleanness’; and what is rendered unclean by the latter suffers ‘second-grade un¬ cleanness’. Ordinary food is susceptible only to the above degrees of uncleanness. Heave¬ offering can suffer uncleanness even at one farther remove, ‘third-grade uncleanness’; and the Hallowed Things (Temple-offerings) are susceptible at still a farther remove, ‘fourth-grade uncleanness’. See p. 137, nn. 10-13. See App. IV.
the selfsame day [because of uncleanness], although they thereby added uncleanness to its uncleanness.
2. R. Hanina the Prefect of the Priests said:1 Never have I seen a hide taken out to the place of burning. R. Akiba said: We learn from his words that if a man flayed a Firstling and it was found to be terefah, the priests may make use of its hide. But the Sages say: ‘We have not seen’ affords no proof; but, rather, such a hide must be taken out to the place of burning.
3. He testified also of a little village near by Jerusalem wherein lived a certain old man who used to lend money to all the people of the village, and write out [the bond of indebtedness] in his own hand, and the others2 signed it; and when the matter came before the Sages they declared it permissible. Hence thou mayest conclude that a woman may write out her own bill of divorce and a man his own quittance,3 for the validity of a document depends only on its signatories. [He testified also] that if a needle was found in the flesh [of an offering in the Temple Court], the knife and the hands [which touched the flesh] remain clean4 but the flesh itself is unclean; but if itwasfoundin theexcrements, everything isaccountedclean.5 4. Three things did R. Ishmael say before the Sages in the vineyard at Jabneh. If6 a beaten-up egg was put on the top of vegetables that are Heave-offering, it serves as a connective, but if it becomes like a cap it does not serve as a connective. Also, if7 the tip of an ear of corn left standing after the reaping touches the standing corn, and it can be reaped together with the standing corn, it belongs to the householder; otherwise it belongs to the poor. Also, if a small garden [encompassed by a wall] is surrounded by trellised vines,8 and there is room enough on the one side for the grape- gatherer and his basket, and room enough on the other side for the grape-gatherer and his basket,9 seed may be sown there;10 otherwise it may not be sown.
5. Three things did they say before R. Ishmael and he did. not declare them either forbidden or permissible; but R. Joshua b. Matthias expounded them. If a man cut open an abscess on the Sabbath in order to make an opening11, he is culpable; but if it was to let out pus12 he is not culpable. Also, if a man hunted a serpent on the Sabbath and he so busied himself that it might not bite him, he is not culpable; but if that he might get a healingdrug.he is culpable. Also,Heronian13 stew-pots are not susceptible14 to uncleanness when they are beneath the same roof as a corpse,1 s but they become unclean if they are carried by one that has a flux.16 Rabbi Eliezer b. Zadok says: Even if they are carried by one that has a flux they remain clean, since their manufacture is not finished.17 1 Zeb. 12*. * The witnesses.
J Which is given by the woman to the man when she is paid her Ketubah on being divorced.
* Since it is in doubt whether they touched the needle, and (according to Toh. 4*), *a condition of doubt that arises in the public domain is deemed clean’; but the flesh has certainly touched the needle.
5 Since the presumption is that the needle has not been in contact with the flesh.
* On the subject of this Halakah see Kil. 41; 61.
* Outside the garden, between the wall and the vines, so that the space of the garden is not needed in the labour on the vines. 10 The law of Deut. 22* will not then apply.
11 It would come within the forbidden category of ‘building’ (Shab. 7*).
11 Permissible since the purpose was not to make a permanent opening.
13 The reading is uncertain.
14 Since they were airtight. They were made in the form of hollow balls and, after baking in the furnace, were split into two bowls. They are here referred to in their undivided state.
,J See Num. 1914*; »* See Lev. 151*. *7 Cf. Kel. 4*.
426 FOURTH DIVISION: NEZIKIN 6. Of three things did R. lshmael speak and R. Akiba did not agree with him: If a man was pressing1 garlic or unripe grapes or ears of green corn while it was yet the eve of Sabbath, R. lshmael says: He may finish pressing them2 after nightfall. But R. Akiba says: He may not finish them.
7. Three things did they say before R. Akiba, two in the name of R. Eliezer and one in the name of R. Joshua. ‘Two in the name of R. Eliezer’: a woman3 may go out [on the Sabbath] wearing a ‘golden city’; and pigeon- flyers4 are not eligible to bear witness. ‘And one in the name of R. Joshua’: if a weasel5 had a [dead] creeping thing in its mouth and it passed over loaves of Heave-offering and it is in doubt whether [the creeping thing] touched them or did not touch them, their condition of doubt is deemed clean.
8. Three things said R. Akiba; with two they agreed and with one they did not agree: that the sandal6 of lime-burners is susceptible to midras- uncleanness;7 that the broken remains of a baking-oven8 must be yet four handbreadths high [in order to continue susceptible to uncleanness] — whereas they had [before] said, ‘three’ — and they agreed with him. ‘And with one they did not agree’: if a stool9 had lost two adjacent boards of its seat R. Akiba declared it [still] susceptible to uncleanness, but the Sages declared it not susceptible.
9. He used to say: A father endows his son with [the blessings] of beauty, strength, riches, wisdom, and length of years; and with [the merits of] the number of the generations that have gone before him, and of them he10 is the end, for it is written. Calling the generations from the beginning;" even though it is written, And shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years, 12 it is also written, And in the fourth generation they shall come hither again.13 10. He also used to say: There are five things that endure for twelve months; the judgement of the generation of the Flood'4 endured twelve months; the judgement of Job15 endured twelve months; the judgement of the Egyptians endured twelve months;16 the judgement of Gog and Magog17 j which is to come shall endure twelve months; and the judgement of the i unrighteous in Gehenna shall endure twelve months, for it is written. It will be from one month until its [same] month.18 R. Johanan b. Nuri says: [Only as long as] from Passover to Pentecost,” for it is written, And from one Sabbath until its [nexf] Sabbath.
3. 1. If20 aught that conveys uncleanness by overshadowing was divided and brought into a house, R. Dosa b. Harkinas declares clean [whatsoever is found in the house], but the Sages declare it unclean. Thus if a man touched or carried two pieces of carrion, each a half-olive’s bulk; or if he touched one half-olive’s bulk of a corpse while he overshadowed another half-olive’s bulk; or if he touched one half-olive’s bulk while a half-olive’s bulk overshadowed him; or if he overshadowed two [pieces each of a] 2 i.e. have the use of what moisture still oozes from them without any fresh effort of his after the entering in of the Sabbath.
3 Shab. 6'. * Sanh. 3*. 3 Toh. 4J. 6 Made from wood or straw.
15 By rabbinical exegesis of Job. 7*.
16 Allowing a little over a mouth for each plague. 17 Cf. Ezek. 38*“.
’* Is. 66**; i.e. the same month of the following year.
19 Seven weeks. Sabbath is here given the sense of ‘feast’ (cf. Lev. 23", where by Sabbath the feast of Passover is meant). jo Ohol. 3*.
half-olive’s bulk; or if he overshadowed one half-olive’s bulk and another half-olive’s bulk overshadowed him — R. Dosa b. Harkinas declares him clean, but the Sages declare him unclean. But if he touched one half-olive’s bulk and some other thing overshadowed both him and another half¬ olive’s bulk, or if he overshadowed one half-olive’s bulk and some other thing overshadowed both him and another half-olive’s bulk, he remains clean. R. Meir said: Here, too, R. Dosa declared him clean, and the Sages declared him unclean. All such conditions render a man unclean save where there is both contact and carrying, or both contact and overshadowing. This is the general rule: if the means of conveying the uncleanness fall within a single category, they convey uncleanness; but if within two cate¬ gories, they do not convey uncleanness.
2. Separated pieces of [unclean] foodstuff are not included together.1 So R. Dosa b. Harkinas. But the Sages say: They are included together. Second Tithe2 may be exchanged for unminted metal. So R. Dosa. But the Sages say: It may not be exchanged for unminted metal. They need immerse only the hands before sprinkling the Sin-offering water.3 So R. Dosa. But the Sages say: If his hands have become unclean his whole body is unclean.
3. R. Dosa permits to non-pricsts the entrails of melons and the outer leaves of vegetables4 that are Heave -offering.3 But the Sages forbid them. [A flock6 of] five sheep that have fleeces each of a mina and a half are subject to the law of the first of the fleece. So R. Dosa. But the Sages say: Five sheep, however much may be their fleeces.
4. All rush mats7 are susceptible to corpse-uncleanness [only]. So R. Dosa. But the Sages say: [Also] to wnWray-uncleanness. No network8 is susceptible to uncleanness save that which is used for a girdle. So R. Dosa. But the Sages say: Every kind is susceptible save that used by wool- dealers.
5. If the receptacle of a sling is of woven work it is susceptible to un¬ cleanness; if it is of leather9 R. Dosa b. Harkinas declares it not susceptible, but the Sages declare it susceptible. If its finger-hold is severed it is not susceptible to uncleanness; but if the thong-hold [only] is severed it remains susceptible.
6. A woman10 that has been taken captive may eat of Heave-offering. So R. Dosa. But the Sages say: There is a captive that may eat and there is a captive that may not eat. Thus if 11 the woman said, ‘I was taken captive, yet I remain clean’, she may eat, since12 the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted; but if there are witnesses [to say] that she was taken captive, and she says, ‘Yet I remain clean’, she may not eat.
7. In13 four conditions of doubt R. Joshua declares a man unclean but the Sages declare him clean. Thus if one that is unclean stands still and one that is clean passes by, or if one that is clean stands still and one that is unclean passes by; or if what is unclean is in a private domain and what is clean is in the public domain, or if what is clean is in a private domain and 1 To make up the egg’s bulk that conveys uncleanness. But cf. Meil. 45.
* Which are discarded as uneatable. 5 Cf. Lev. 22’°®. 6 Hull. 1 1 =.
v For the subject here discussed see Kel. 24*°; 27*.
8 As opposed to woven work; cf. Kel. 27lff. 9 Cf. Kel. 26s.
10 An Israelite’s daughter married to a priest; cf. Lev. 2212. 11 Ket. 2s.
12 Some texts omit the following sentence. 13 Toh. 6Z.
428 FOURTH DIVISION: NEZIKIN what is unclean is in the public domain, and it is in doubt whether one touched the other or not, or whether one overshadowed the other or not. or whether one shifted [what was unclean] or not, R. Joshua declares a man unclean but the Sages declare him clean.
8. Three1 things R. Zadok declares susceptible to uncleanness and the Sages declare them not susceptible. The nail of the money-changer, a grist-dealer’s chest, and the point of a sundial. R. Zadok declares them susceptible and the Sages declare them not susceptible.
9. Four2 things Rabban Gamaliel declares susceptible to uncleanness and the Sages declare them not susceptible. The metal basket-cover belonging to householders, the hanger of a strigil, unfinished metal vessels, and a plate broken into two [equal parts]. But the Sages agree with Rabban Gamaliel that if the plate was broken into two pieces the one large and the other small, the larger is susceptible to uncleanness but the smaller becomes insus¬ ceptible.
to. In3 three things Rabban Gamaliel gives the more stringent ruling, following the opinion of the School of Shammai. Hot food may not be covered up on a Festival-day for the Sabbath, nor may a candlestick be put together on a Festival-day, nor may bread be baked into large loaves, but only into thin cakes. Rabban Gamaliel said: Never did my father’s house¬ hold bake bread into large loaves but only into thin cakes. They said to him: What shall we infer from thy father's household which applied the stringent ruling to themselves, but the lenient ruling to Israel, so that they might bake the bread both in large loaves and thick cakes!
xi. Moreover4 he gave three opinions applying the more lenient ruling: they may sweep up between couches and put the spices on the fire on a Festival-day, and prepare a kid roasted whole on Passover night. But the Sages forbid these things.
12. Three things5 did R. Eleazar b. Azariah permit and the Sages forbid. A man’s cow' may go out [on the Sabbath] with the strap that is between its horns, and they may curry cattle on a Festival-day, and grind pepper in its proper mill. R. Judah says: They may not curry cattle on a Festival-day since it may cause a weal, but they may comb them. And the Sages say: They may neither curry them nor comb them.
4. 1. In these things the School of Shammai adopted the more lenient, and the School of Hillel the more stringent ruling. If6 an egg was laid on a Festival-day the School of Shammai say: It may be eaten. And the School of Hillel say: It may not be eaten. The School of Shammai say: An olive’s bulk of leaven and a date’s bulk of what is leavened. And the School of Hillel say: An olive’s bulk of either.
2. If a beast was born on a Festival-day they agree that it is permitted, but if a chicken was hatched from an egg they agree that it is forbidden.7 If8 a man slaughtered a wild animal or a bird on a Festival-day, the School of Shammai say: He may dig with a mattock and cover up [the blood]. And the School of Hillel say: He should not slaughter unless he had earth set in readiness [to cover up the blood]. But they agree that if he had slaughtered he may dig with a mattock and cover up [the blood]; [moreover they agreed] that ashes of a stove may be regarded as set in readiness.
2 Some texts omit this first sentence of the paragraph. * Betz. 1 *.
3. The School of Shammai say:1 [If produce is proclaimed] ‘ownerless’ for the benefit of the poor, it is accounted ownerless [and tithe-free]. And the School of Hillel say: It can only be accounted ownerless [and tithe- free] if [it is proclaimed] ownerless [equally] for the benefit of the rich as in the year of Release. If the sheaves in a field were each of one kab's weight but one was of four kabs, if this was forgotten the School of Shammai say: It may not be deemed a Forgotten Sheaf. And the School of Hillel say: It may be deemed a Forgotten Sheaf.
4. If2 a sheaf lies near to a wall or to a stack or to the oxen or to the implements, and is forgotten, the School of Shammai say: It may not be deemed a Forgotten Sheaf. And the School of Hillel say: It may be deemed a Forgotten Sheaf.
5. The School of Shammai say:3 The rules of the [Added] Fifth and of Removal do not apply to [the grapes of] a Fourth Year Vineyard. And the School of Hillel say: They do apply. The School of Shammai say: The laws of grape-gleanings and of the defective cluster apply, and the poor redeem the grapes for themselves. And the School of Hillel say: The whole yield goes to the winepress.
6. Ajar of pickled olives, according to the School of Shammai, need not be broached.4 And the School of Hillel say: It must be broached. But they agree that if it had been broached and the lees block up the breach, it is not susceptible to uncleanness.5 If a man anointed himself with clean oil and then became unclean and he went down and immersed himself, the School of Shammai say: Even though he still drips [with oil] it is clean.6 and the School of Hillel say: [It is unclean so long as there remains] enough to anoint a small member. And if it was unclean oil at the outset, the School of Shammai say: [It remains unclean, even after he has immersed himself, so long as there remains] enough to anoint a small member. And the School of Hillel say: So long as it remains a moist liquid. R. Judah says in the name of the School of Hillel: So long as it is moist enough to moisten aught else.
7. According to the School of Shammai,7 a woman is betrothed by [the gift of] a denar or a denar's worth. And the School of Hillel say: By a perutah or a perutah's worth. And how much is a perutah? The eighth part of an Italian issar. The School of Shammai say:8 A man may dismiss his wife with an old bill of divorce. And the School of Hillel forbid it. What is an old bill of divorce? If he continued alone with her after he had written it for her [it becomes an ‘old’ bill of divorce]. If9 a man divorced his wife and she then lodged with him in an inn, the School of Shammai say: She does not need another bill of divorce from him. And the School of Hillel say: She needs another bill of divorce from him. This applies when she was divorced after wedlock; but if she had been divorced from him after betrothal [only], she does not need another bill of divorce from him, since he is not yet shameless before her.
8. The School of Shammai permit10 levirate marriage between the co- 4 To let out the moisture that exudes from the fruit, lest the liquid ‘render it susceptible to uncleanness’ (Lev. n34’:w; Maksh. 6’); since moisture renders foodstuffs unclean only if it is applied purposely or to some one’s advantage (cf. Maksh. I1).
s Since the broaching of the jar has itself proved that the sap was not regarded as an advantage.
6 It was rendered clean as a part of the body.
430 FOURTH DIVISION: NEZIKIN wives and the surviving brothers. And the School of Hillel forbid it. If they performed halitzah the School of Shammai declare them ineligible to marry a priest, but the School of Hillel declare them eligible. If they had been taken in levirate marriage, the School of Shammai declare them eligible but the School of Hillel ineligible. Notwithstanding that these declare ineligible whom the others declare eligible, yet [the men of] the School of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from [the families of] the School of Hillel, nor [the men of] the School of Hillel from marrying women from [the families of] the School of Shammai; and despite all the disputes about what is clean and unclean, wherein these declare clean what the others declare unclean, neither scrupled to use aught that pertained to the others in matters concerned wfith cleanness.
9. If1 there were three brothers, two married to two sisters, and one un¬ married, and one of the married brothers died, and the unmarried brother bespoke the widow, and then his second brother died, the School of Sham¬ mai say: His [bespoken] wife abides with him and the other is free as being his wife’s sister. And the School of Hillel say: He must put away his [bespoken] wife both by bill of divorce and by halitzah, and his brother’s wife by haltizah. This is a case whereof they have said, ‘Woe to him because of [the loss of] his wife, and woe to him because of [the loss of] his brother’s wife!’
10. If2 a man vowed to have no intercourse with his wife the School of Shammai say: [She may consent] for two weeks. And the School of Hillel say: For one week [only]. If3 a woman miscarried on the night of the eighty-first day, the School of Shammai declare her exempt from aA offering. And the School of Hillel declare her liable. The School of Sham¬ mai declare a linen garment exempt from the law of the Fringe;4 and the School of Hillel declare it subject to the law. A basket3 of fruit intended for the Sabbath the School of Shammai declare exempt [from Tithes], and the School of Hillel declare it liable.
11. If a man6 vowed to be a Nazirite for a longer spell and he fulfilled his Nazirite-vow and afterward came to the Land [of Israel], the School of Shammai say: He need continue a Nazirite [only for] thirty days [more]. And the School of Hillel say: Fie must again fulfil his vow as from the beginning. If7 two pairs of witnesses testified of a man, and the one testified that he had vowed two Nazirite-vows, and the other that he had vowed five, the School of Shammai say: Their testimony is at variance, and the Nazirite-vow cannot be held binding. And the School of Hillel say: The two are included within the five, so that he must remain a Nazirite for the two spells.
12. If8 a man was put there below the split,9 the School of Shammai say: He does not give passage to the uncleanness. And the School of Hillel say: A man is hollow, and his upper side gives passage to the uncleanness.
5. 1. R. Judah reports six opinions in which the School of Shammai follow the more lenient, and the School of Hillel the more stringent ruling. According to the School of Shammai the blood of a carcase is clean,10 and 4 The cord of blue (Num. 1538; Deut. 221"). It was of wool, thereby infringing the law against ‘mingled stuff, wool and linen together’ (Deut. 2211).
the School of Hillel declare it unclean. An egg from a [bird’s] carcase is permitted if it is in like condition to them that are sold in the market,1 otherwise it is forbidden. So the School of Shammai. And the School of Hillel forbid it [in any condition]. But they agree that an egg from a bird that is terefah is forbidden, since it was fashioned in what was forbidden. The blood2 of a gentile woman and the blood of the purifying of a woman that is a leper, the School of Shammai declare clean; and the School of Hillel say: It is like to her spittle or her urine. According to the School of Shammai3 they may eat Seventh Year produce by favour [of the owner] or without favour. And the School of Hillel say: They may only eat it by favour [of the owner]. The School of Shammai say: A water-skin4 [can contract wn'ffray-uncleanness] when it is tied up with a durable knot. And the School of Hillel say: Even when it is not tied up.
2. R. Jose reports six opinions in which the School of Shammai follow the more lenient and the School of Hillel the more stringent ruling. Ac¬ cording to the School of Shammai a fowl5 may be served up on the table together with cheese but it may not be eaten with it. And the School of Hillel say: It may neither be served up with it nor eaten with it. According to the School of Shammai Heave-offering6 may be set apart from olives instead of from oil, or from grapes instead of from wine; and the School of Hillel forbid it. According to the School of Shammai if a man sowed seed7 within a space of four cubits [from the vines] of a vineyard, he renders forfeit one row; and the School of Hillel say: He renders forfeit two rows. The School of Shammai declare flour-paste8 exempt [from Dough-offering], and the School of Hillel declare it liable. According to the School of Shammai they may immerse9 themselves in a rain-stream, and the School of Hillel say that they may not do so. The School of Shammai say: If a man became a proselyte10 on the day before Passover, he may immerse him¬ self and consume his Passover-offering in the evening. And the School of Hillel say: He that separates himself from his uncircumcision is as one that separates himself from the grave.