Four things Rabbi Eliezer declares pure while the Sages declare impure. The rim of a stone strainer—Rabbi Eliezer says: It is not impure in the air; but the Sages say: It is impure in the air. A baker's sheet which is fixed to a nail, or attached to a beam—Rabbi Eliezer makes it pure; but the Sages make it impure. A shoe that is on the shoe mold—Rabbi Eliezer makes it pure; but the Sages make it impure. He cut it [an oven, see Mishnah Kelim 5:10] into rings, and sand is placed between each ring, Rabbi Eliezer makes it pure; but the Sages make it impure. This was called the oven of Akhnai, for on its account, disagreement (mahloket) increased in Israel.

In twenty-four matters Beit Shammai was lenient while Beit Hillel was stringent. Beit Shammai says: a person cannot impose a vow on his wife; Beit Hillel says, a man cannot impose a nazirite vow on his son. An egg which was born on a yom tov—others say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, it and its mother may be eaten. If the one who anointed himself with clean oil and then became unclean went down and immersed himself, Beit Shammai says, even though [the oil] drops and falls, he is clean. Beit Hillel says, [if there remained on him enough] to anoint a small limb, he is unclean, but less than that, he is clean. Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadoq said, when I was at Rabbi Yohanan ben Hahironi’s, I saw that he ate his bread dry for they were years of famine. I came and told my father. He said to me, bring him olives. I brought him olives. He took them and looked at them and saw they were wet. He said to me, I don’t eat olives. I came and told my father. He said to me, go tell him the jar is perforated according to Beit Hillel but the dregs have stopped it up. This informs you that he ate in a state of purity, for even though he was a student of Beit Shammai, he acted only according to the words of Beit Hillel.

The halakhah always follows the words of Beth Hillel. One who wishes to be strict upon oneself and to follow the strictures of both Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai, regarding this person it is said “the fool walks in darkness” (Ecclesiastes 2:14), while one who accepts the leniencies of Beth Shamai and the leniencies of Beth Hillel is evil – [one must follow] either Beth Shammai in accordance with their leniencies and strictures, or Beth Hillel in accordance with their leniencies and strictures. Beit Hillel says, a man may not send out his wife with an old get, so her get will not be older than her child. If he wrote in the name of a provincial government or an office, or if there were two standing kings and he wrote it in the name of one of them, it is valid. If he wrote it in the name of his father’s father, it is valid. In the name of his family, it is invalid. But if he was called by the same name, it is valid.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai did not dispute about the one who divorces his wife and she spent a night with him at an inn and she did not require of him a second get. About what did they dispute? About the one who takes a vow not to have sex with his wife. Beit Shammai says, two weeks, like when she gives birth to a female child. Beit Hillel says, a single week, like when she gives birth to a male child or like the days of her niddah. Longer than that, he must send her out and give her her ketubah. A basket, Beit Shammai exempts and Beit Hillel deems liable. Rabbi Yehuda says, Hillel himself would prohibit. A basket of chosen fruits, Beit Shammai exempts and Beit Hillel deems liable. Rabbi Yehuda says, Hillel himself would prohibit. The one who takes a basket to send to his fellow should not eat until it has been tithed. Rabbi Yehuda says, Hillel himself would prohibit.

Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yohanan ben B’roqah said, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about when there are two groups of witnesses to testify for someone that he is a nazir in purity. About what did they have a disagreement? When there are two witnesses to testify for him. Beit Shammai says, there is a disagreement whether he is a nazirite. Beit Hillel says, there are in five two, so he is a nazirite twice.

Rabbi Yehuda says, in five matters Beit Shammai was lenient while Beit Hillel was stringent. The blood of carrion—Beit Shammai deems it clean and Beit Hillel deems it unclean. Rabbi Yosei son of rabbi Yehuda says, even when Beit Hillel deemed it unclean, they only deemed in unclean if the blood was in the amount of a revi’it, so that if it congealed it would be an olive’s-bulk. And they agreed concerning the egg of a torn animal, that it is prohibited because it grew up prohibited. About what do they disagree? About the egg of carrion, of which Beit Shammai says, if one such as that is sold in the market, it is permitted, and if not, it is prohibited. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaaqov says, another matter about which Beit Shammai was lenient while Beit Hillel was stringent. Beit Shammai says, [multiple] acts of sprinkling [blood on the altar] make the sin-offering acceptable or piggul, and a single act for all other sacrifices. Beit Hillel says, for both the sin-offering and all other sacrifices, a single act renders acceptable or piggul.

Rabbi Shimon says, about three matters Beit Shammai was lenient and Beit Hillel was stringent. [The book of] Qohelet does not impart impurity to the hands according to Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel says, it does impart impurity to the hands. Water of purification which has done its work, Beit Shammai says it is pure and Beit Shammai [probably read: Beit Hillel] deems it impure. A woman who is in active labor, how long may she be relieved [from pain] and become a zavah? Rabbi Eliezer says, a full day, and the halakhah according to him. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, Beit Shammai says three days and Beit Hillel says one day.

Rabbi Eliezer says, about two matters Beit Shammai was lenient and Beit Hillel was stringent. The blood of a woman after childbirth who has not immersed imparts impurity when wet but does not impart impurity when dry, according to Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel says, it imparts purity both wet and dry. Four brothers, two of whom marry two sisters, and the ones married to the sisters die, they perform halitzah and do not do yibum, and if they had already gone ahead and gotten married, they must send them away. Rabbi Eliezer says in the name of Beit Shammai, [the marriage] stands. But Beit Hillel says, the send them out. Abba Shaul says, the lenient [position] was Beit Hillel’s in this matter.

The one who plucks [hair] from an unblemished first-born and puts it in the window, even though a blemish comes upon [the animal] after that and it is slaughtered, this is buried. A blemished first-born from which he picked [hair] and after that it died, Akavya ben Mehalalel permits but the Sages prohibit. Rabbi Yehuda said, in this Akavya concedes that it is prohibited. About what did they disagree? About [a case where] it was made unclean and he plucked from it and after that he slaughtered it. In which case Akavya permits and the Sages prohibit. Rabbi Yosei says, Rabbi Halafta concedes that this is permitted. But the Sages specifically said, let him put it in the window, lest there is a time that if it dies it will be prohibited. But if he slaughtered it, it is permitted. About what did they disagree? About [a case when] it became unclean and he plucked from it and after that it died, when Akavya ben Mehalalel permits and the Sages prohibit.

An olive’s-bulk of flesh which is separated from the limb of a living being, Rabbi Eliezer deems impure. They gave Rabbi Eliezer three responses. No, if you said of a house [to which applies the rule of] a quarter-kav and moldering. Will you say of the limb of a living animal which is not subject [to the rule] of a quarter-kav or moldering? Another thing: which depends on which? Does a limb depend on the flesh or does the flesh depend on the limb? The flesh depends on the limb. Is it possible that flesh could render impure by touching, carrying, and [being] in a tent and the limb should be clean? Rabbi Shimon said, it is surprising to me that Rabbi Eliezer would deem it impure. He declared impure only in a time when there was on the limb flesh enough so that this and this could render impure by touching, carrying, or [being] in a tent. A bone the size of a barley-grain which is separated [from the limb of a living animal], Rabbi Nehunya declares impure. They gave Rabbi Nehunya three answers. No. If you said of a corpse which is subject to [the laws of] a quarter-kav and molding, will you say of a limb of a living animal which is not subject to [the laws] of a quarter-kav or molding. Another thing: Which depends on which? Does a limb depend on the bone, or does a bone depend on the limb? Ah, he would say that a bone depends on the limb. It is possible that the bone renders impure through touching and carrying but the limb is pure. Rabbi Shimon said, it is surprising to me if Rabbi Nehunya deemed it impure. He only deemed it impure when there was on the limb a barley-grain’s worth of bone, so that this and this render impure through touching and carrying. Rabbi Yehoshua responded to the words of both of them, and what of a case of a living being which there are 248 bones, bone and flesh that separated form it are clean. A limb from a living animal which does not have as many, bone and flesh that are separated from it should be clean. Rabbi responded to the words of Rabbi Yehoshua, no. If you say that the thins which separate from a living being [are clean], it is because they separate from something living which is clean. Will you say [the same] that the limb of a living being which has separated from something which is unclean?