Beit Hillel changed their mind and ruled in accordance with Beit Shammai חזרו בית הלל להורות כדברי בית שמאי

And Beit Hillel ultimately retracted their opinion, to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai...

לִיבְטֵּיל — וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ״. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב לוֹ שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָּמָיו. וְחָזְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי.
And if you say he should be idle and not marry, but isn’t it true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)? Rather, for the betterment of the world we force his master to make him a freeman, and the slave writes a bill to his master accepting his responsibility to pay half his value to him. And Beit Hillel ultimately retracted their opinion, to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai that a half-slave must be set free.
אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וַהֲלֹא מִסֵּפֶר כְּתוּבָּה נִלְמוֹד שֶׁהוּא כּוֹתֵב לָהּ שֶׁאִם תִּנָּשְׂאִי לְאַחֵר תִּטְּלִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לִיכִי וְחָזְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי
Beit Shammai said to them: But we can learn this halakha from the scroll of the marriage contract, as every husband writes for her that: If you marry another man, take what is written for you in this contract. This shows that her right to receive the money of her marriage contract is dependent upon her eligibility to remarry. In this case, as she is deemed credible when she says her husband died and she may marry again, she is likewise entitled to the money of the marriage contract. And Beit Hillel again retracted their opinion, and decided to teach in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.
בַּת חוֹרִין אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד יִבָּטֵל וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תוֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָמָיו וְחָזְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי
It is also not possible for him to marry a free woman, as he is still a half-slave. If you say he should be idle and not marry, but isn’t it true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)? Rather, for the betterment of the world his master is forced to make him a freeman, and the slave writes a promissory note accepting his responsibility to pay half his value to his master. And Beit Hillel ultimately retracted their opinion, to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, that a half-slave must be set free.
אֶלָּא כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין וְכוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָּמָיו וְחָזְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי
Rather, the court forces his master to make him a freeman by emancipating the half that he owns, and the court writes a bill in which the slave accepts responsibility to pay half his value to his master. This was the original version of the mishna. The ultimate version of the mishna records the retraction of Beit Hillel: And Beit Hillel retracted its opinion and ruled in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. This indicates that it is only in this case, where there is the particular consideration of procreation, that the court compels one of the parties to forfeit his portion and dissolve the partnership. But in other cases there is no halakha of: Either you set a price or I will set a price.
וְחָזְרוּ בֵּית הִילֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי.
The ultimate version of the mishna records the retraction of Beit Hillel: And Beit Hillel retracted its position and ruled like Beit Shammai.
אלא מפני תיקון העולם כופין את רבו ועושה אותו בן חורין וכותב שטר על חצי דמיו וחזרו בית הלל להורות כדברי בית שמאי
Rather, for the betterment of the world, i.e., so that the slave will be able to engage in procreation, the court forces his master to make him a freeman by emancipating the half that he owns. And the slave writes a bill to his master accepting responsibility to pay half his value to him over time, as currently he has no property with which to redeem himself. And Beit Hillel ultimately retracted their opinion, to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai that a half-slave must be emancipated. The ruling of the mishna that a half-slave must appear in the Temple is in accordance with this opinion, which holds that the master must free him. Ravina’s statement that he is not obligated to appear in the Temple is in accordance with the initial mishna, according to which Beit Hillel held that the master is not forced to free the half-slave.
אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁחָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁבָּאָה מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְאָמְרָה מֵת בַּעְלִי, תִּנָּשֵׂא. מֵת בַּעְלִי, תִּתְיַבֵּם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ אֶלָּא בְּבָאָה מִן הַקָּצִיר בִּלְבָד. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, אַחַת הַבָּאָה מִן הַקָּצִיר וְאַחַת הַבָּאָה מִן הַזֵּיתִים וְאַחַת הַבָּאָה מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, לֹא דִבְּרוּ בַקָּצִיר אֶלָּא בַהֹוֶה. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּבֵית שַׁמָּאי. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, תִּנָּשֵׂא וְתִטֹּל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, תִּנָּשֵׂא וְלֹא תִטֹּל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, הִתַּרְתֶּם אֶת הָעֶרְוָה הַחֲמוּרָה, לֹא תַתִּירוּ אֶת הַמָּמוֹן הַקָּל. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, מָצִינוּ שֶׁאֵין הָאַחִים נִכְנָסִין לַנַּחֲלָה עַל פִּיהָ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וַהֲלֹא מִסֵּפֶר כְּתֻבָּתָהּ נִלְמֹד, שֶׁהוּא כוֹתֵב לָהּ, שֶׁאִם תִּנָּשְׂאִי לְאַחֵר, תִּטְּלִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לִיךְ. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי:

These are subjects concerning which Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai:A woman who came from overseas and said: “My husband died” may be married again; “My husband died [without children]” she must be married by her husband’s brother (the levir). But Beth Hillel says: “We have heard so only in the case of one who came from the harvesting.” Beth Shammai said to them: “It is the same thing in the case of one who came from the harvesting or who came from the olive-picking or who came from overseas; they mentioned harvesting only because that is how it happened.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to Beth Shammai. Beth Shammai says: “She may be married again and take her kethubah payment.” But Beth Hillel says: “She may be married again but may not take her kethubah payment.” Beth Shammai said to them: “You have permitted the graver matter of a forbidden marriage, should you not permit the lighter matter of property?” Beth Hillel said to them: “We have found that brothers do not inherit on her statement.” Beth Shammai said to them: “Do we not infer it from her marriage document in which he writes to her ‘That if you be married to another you shall take what is written for you’?” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.

כְּלִי חֶרֶס מַצִּיל עַל הַכֹּל, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ מַצִּיל אֶלָּא עַל הָאֳכָלִין וְעַל הַמַּשְׁקִין וְעַל כְּלֵי חָרֶס. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, מִפְּנֵי מָה. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא עַל גַּב עַם הָאָרֶץ, וְאֵין כְּלִי טָמֵא חוֹצֵץ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, וַהֲלֹא טִהַרְתֶּם אֳכָלִים וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, כְּשֶׁטִּהַרְנוּ אֳכָלִים וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ, לְעַצְמוֹ טִהַרְנוּ. אֲבָל כְּשֶׁטִּהַרְתָּ אֶת הַכְּלִי, טִהַרְתָּ לְךָ וָלוֹ. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי:

A vessel of earthenware can protect everything [in it from contracting impurity], according to Beth Hillel. But Beth Shammai says: “It protects only food and liquids and [other] vessels of earthenware.” Beth Hillel said to them: “Why?” Beth Shammai said to them: “Because it is [itself] impure with respect to an ignoramus, and no impure vessel can screen [against impurity].” Beth Hillel said to them: “And did you not pronounce pure the food and liquids inside it?” Beth Shammai said to them: “When we pronounced pure the food and liquids inside it, we pronounced them pure for him [the ignoramus] only, but when you pronounced the vessel pure you pronounced it pure for yourself and for him.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.

חָבִית שֶׁהִיא מְלֵאָה מַשְׁקִין טְהוֹרִין וּמְנִיקָת בְּתוֹכָהּ, מֻקֶּפֶת צָמִיד פָּתִיל וּנְתוּנָה בְאֹהֶל הַמֵּת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, הֶחָבִית וְהַמַּשְׁקִין טְהוֹרִין, וּמְנִיקָת טְמֵאָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִין, אַף מְנִיקָת טְהוֹרָה. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי:
A jar that was full of clean liquids, with a siphon in it, and it had a tightly fitting cover and was in a tent in which there was a corpse: Bet Shammai says: both the jar and the liquids are clean but the siphon is unclean. And Bet Hillel says: the siphon also is clean. Bet Hillel changed their mind and ruled in agreement with Bet Shammai.
הָיְתָה שְׁלֵמָה, בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מַצֶּלֶת עַל הַכֹּל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינָהּ מַצֶּלֶת אֶלָּא עַל הָאֳכָלִים וְעַל הַמַּשְׁקִים וְעַל כְּלֵי חָרֶס. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי:
If [the pot] was whole:Bet Hillel says: it protects all [from uncleanness].A vessel of earthenware can protect everything [in it from contracting impurity], according to Beth Hillel. Bet Shammai says: it protects only food, drink and earthenware vessels.But Beth Shammai says: “It protects only food and liquids and [other] vessels of earthenware.” Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.Beth Hillel said to them: “Why?” Beth Shammai said to them: “Because it is [itself] impure with respect to an ignoramus, and no impure vessel can screen [against impurity].” Beth Hillel said to them: “And did you not pronounce pure the food and liquids inside it?” Beth Shammai said to them: “When we pronounced pure the food and liquids inside it, we pronounced them pure for him [the ignoramus] only, but when you pronounced the vessel pure you pronounced it pure for yourself and for him.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.
לָגִין שֶׁהוּא מָלֵא מַשְׁקִין טְהוֹרִין, הַלָּגִין טָמֵא טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, וְהַמַּשְׁקִין טְהוֹרִין. וְאִם פִּנָּן בִּכְלִי אַחֵר, טְמֵאִין. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא לָשָׁה בָעֲרֵבָה, הָאִשָּׁה וְהָעֲרֵבָה טְמֵאִים טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, וְהַבָּצֵק טָהוֹר. וְאִם פִּנַּתּוּ לִכְלִי אַחֵר, טָמֵא. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי:
[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.
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria. Learn More.OKאנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.קראו עוד בנושאלחצו כאן לאישור