Yevamot 27

&nbsp; &nbsp; — Do you imagine that Beth Shammai acted <font>in accordance with their views</font>? Beth Shammai did not act <font>(in accordance with their views.)</font> R. Johanan, however, said: They <font>certainly acted [in accordance with their views]</font>. Herein they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan and R. Lakish. ');">¹</span>

differ on the same point as do Rab and Samuel. For Rab maintains that Beth Shammai <font>did not act in accordance with their views</font>, while Samuel maintains that they certainly <font>did act [in accordance with their views]</font>. When?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to what period does the dispute just mentioned refer? ');">²</span> If it be suggested, <font>prior to the decision of the heavenly voice</font>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (v. Glos. s.v. Bath Kol), which decided that the law in practice was always to be in accordance with the rulings of Beth Hillel (v. 'Er. 13a). ');">³</span>

then what reason has he who maintains that they <font>did not act [in accordance with their own view]? If, however, after the decision of the heavenly voice</font>, what reason has he who maintains that they <font>did act [in accordance with their views]</font>? — If you wish I could say, <font>prior to the decision of the heavenly voice; and if you prefer I could say, after the heavenly voice. 'If you wish I could say, prior to the heavenly voice'</font>, when, for instance, Beth Hillel were in the majority: <font>One maintains<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'according to him who said'. ');">⁴</span></font> that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">⁵</span>

did not act [according to their view] for the obvious reason that Beth Hillel were in the majority; while the <font>other maintains<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and he who said'. ');">⁶</span></font> that they did act [according to their view, because] a majority is to be followed only where both sides are equally matched;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In qualifications and attainments. ');">⁷</span>

in this case, however, Beth Shammai were keener of intellect. <font>'And if you prefer I could say, after the heavenly voice'; one maintains that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">⁵</span></font> did not act [according to their view] for the obvious reason that the heavenly voice had already gone forth;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And decided the issue in favour of Beth Hillel. ');">⁸</span>

<font>while the other who maintains that they did act [according to their view]</font> is [of the same opinion as] R. Joshua who declared that <font>no regard need be paid to a heavenly voice</font>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 59b, Ber. 52a, 'Er. 7a, Pes. 114a. ');">⁹</span> Now as to the other who 'maintains that they did act [according to their views]'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after the heavenly voice. ');">¹⁰</span>

— should not the warning, 'Lo tithgodedu, you shall not form separate sects'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 70, n. 13. ');">¹¹</span> be applied? — Abaye replied: The warning against opposing sects is only applicable to such a case as that of two courts of law in the same town, one of whom rules in accordance with the views of Beth Shammai while the other rules in accordance with the views of Beth Hillel. In the case, however, of two courts of law in two different towns [the difference in practice] does not matter. Said Raba to him: Surely the case of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel is like that of two courts of law in the same town! The fact, however, is, said Raba, that the warning against opposing sects is only applicable to such a case as that of one court of law in the same town, half of which rule in accordance with the views of Beth Shammai while the other half rule in accordance with the views of Beth Hillel. In the case, however, of two courts of law in the same town [the difference in practice] does not matter.

Come and hear: In the place of R. Eliezer, wood was cut on the Sabbath wherewith to produce charcoal on which to forge the iron.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The knife required for the performance of circumcision. The circumcision of a child, his health permitting, must take place on the eighth day of his birth (v. Gen. XVII, 12) even though it happened to fall on a Sabbath when manual labour is prohibited. And since the precept itself supersedes the Sabbath, all its requisites such as the wood and coals (for the preparation of warm water) and the knife may also be performed on the Sabbath. ');">¹²</span> In the place of R. Jose the Galilean the flesh of fowl was eaten with milk.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is forbidden to eat meat, or any dishes made of meat, together with milk or any preparation of milk. R. Jose exempts the flesh of fowl from the general prohibition of the consumption of meat and milk. Shab. 130a, Hul. 116a. ');">¹³</span>

In the place of R. Eliezer only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'; only there was the preparation of the requisites of circumcision permitted on the Sabbath. ');">¹⁴</span> but not in the place of R. Akiba; for we learnt: R. Akiba laid it down as a general rule that any labour which may be performed on the Sabbath Eve<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as the cutting of wood, the production of coals and the forging of the knife. ');">¹⁵</span>

does not supersede the Sabbath!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, in view of the undesirability of creating different sects, why were all these varied practices allowed? ');">¹⁶</span> — What an objection is this! The case, surely, is different [when the varied practices are respectively confined to] different localities. What then did he who raised this question imagine?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It should have been obvious to him that different localities may differ in their custom. (Cf. supra p. 53, n. 11.) ');">¹⁷</span>

— It might have been assumed that owing to the great restrictions of the Sabbath [different localities are regarded] as one place, hence it was necessary to teach us [that the law was not so]. Come and hear: R. Abbahu, whenever he happened to be in the place of R. Joshua b. Levi, carried<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'moved'. ');">¹⁸</span>

a candle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath. A candle, though it was burning when Sabbath set in may, according to R. Joshua who follows R. Simeon in permitting mukzeh (v. next note), be moved on the Sabbath after the flame has gone out. ');">¹⁹</span> but when he happened to be in the place of R. Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan, following R. Judah, forbids the carrying or moving of a candle that had been burning when the Sabbath set in though it had subsequently gone out. As it was burning at the commencement of the Sabbath it was at that time fit for no other use and is regarded, therefore, as mukzeh, i.e., 'something set aside', that is not to be used for any other purpose. Anything that was mukzeh when the Sabbath began remains so until it ends. ');">²⁰</span>

he did not carry a candle!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is not the practice of carrying a candle in one place and not carrying it in another as undesirable as the formation of opposing sects? ');">²¹</span> — What question is this! Has it not been said that the case is different [when the varied practices are respectively confined to] varied localities? — This is the question:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we say thus'. ');">²²</span>

How could R. Abbahu act in one place in one way and in another place in another way?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'how did he do here thus' (bis). ');">²³</span> — R. Abbahu is of the same opinion as R. Joshua b. Levi,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 3. ');">²⁴</span>

but when he happened to be in R. Johanan's place he did not move a candle out of respect for R. Johanan. But his attendant,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who well knew that his master was of the same opinion as R. Joshua b. Levi. The [H] was in many cases both an attendant on the master and also one of his learned disciples. ');">²⁵</span> surely was also there!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And might move such a candle on the Sabbath even in R. Johanan's place. ');">²⁶</span>

— He gave his attendant the necessary instructions. Come and hear: THOUGH THESE FORBADE WHAT THE OTHERS PERMITTED&nbsp;… BETH SHAMMAI, NEVERTHELESS, DID NOT REFRAIN FROM MARRYING WOMEN FROM THE FAMILIES OF BETH HILLEL, NOR DID BETH HILLEL [REFRAIN FROM MARRYING WOMEN] FROM THE FAMILIES OF BETH SHAMMAI. Now, if it be said that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">²⁷</span>

did not act [in accordance with their own view] one can well understand why THEY DID NOT REFRAIN [from intermarrying with one another].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, in practice, both schools followed the same principles. ');">²⁸</span> If, however, it be said that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">²⁷</span>

did act [in accordance with their own view], why did they not refrain? That Beth Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the families of Beth Hillel may well be justified because such<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The descendants from the marriages with strangers contracted by the rivals who, in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel, performed no halizah. ');">²⁹</span> are the children of persons guilty only of the infringement of a negative precept;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even Beth Shammai who require the rivals to perform the halizah regard such marriages as the infringement of a prohibition only ('The wife of the dead shall not be married abroad', Deut. XXV, 5), which does not involve kareth. The children of such marriages are consequently not deemed to be bastards. ');">³⁰</span>

but why did not Beth Hillel refrain from [marrying women from the families of] Beth Shammai? Such,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Descendants from marriages between rivals and brothers-in-law. Such marriages, which are permitted by Beth Shammai, are regarded by Beth Hillel as forbidden under the prohibition of marrying one's brother's wife, which involves the penalty of kareth. ');">³¹</span> surely, being children of persons who are guilty of an offence involving <i>kareth</i>, are bastards!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, then, did they intermarry with families containing such members? ');">³²</span>

And if it be suggested that Beth Hillel are of the opinion that the descendant of those who are guilty of an offence involving <i>kareth</i> is not a bastard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A bastard being the descendant only of such marriages as are subject to one of the capital punishments that are carried out under the jurisdiction of a court. ');">³³</span> surely, [it may be retorted], R. Eleazar said: Although Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in disagreement on the questions of rivals, they concede that a bastard is only he who is descended from a marriage which is forbidden as incest and punishable with <i>kareth</i>! Does not this then conclusively prove that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">²⁷</span> did not act [in accordance with their own view]? — No; they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">²⁷</span> acted, indeed, [in accordance with their own view], but they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">²⁷</span> informed them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Hillel. ');">³⁴</span> [of the existence of any such cases] and they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Hillel. ');">³⁴</span> kept away. This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Beth Shammai duly informed Beth Hillel of any families contracting marriages which according to the ruling of the latter were forbidden. ');">³⁵</span> may also be proved by logical inference; for in the final clause it was stated. [SIMILARLY IN RESPECT OF] ALL [THE QUESTIONS OF RITUAL] CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, WHICH THESE DECLARED CLEAN WHERE THE OTHERS DECLARED UNCLEAN, NEITHER OF THEM ABSTAINED FROM USING THE UTENSILS OF THE OTHERS FOR THE PREPARATION OF FOOD THAT WAS RITUALLY CLEAN.