Rabbis Changing Their Mind

(8) Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet [hung] on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?” It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.” Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: they are lying witnesses. When they came to Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel accepted them. On another occasion two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at its proper time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day her belly is between her teeth (swollen)? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument.

(9) Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these. He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9). Why were the names of the elders not mentioned? To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses. He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision.

And if you wish, say a different item on the list that is omitted from the tally: When he teaches six, he lists anywhere that Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion, to the exclusion of a quarter-log of blood, as he did not retract his opinion in that case, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to bar Kappara: Do not teach a quarter-log of blood in the list of Rabbi Akiva’s retractions, as Rabbi Akiva held onto his opinion in this regard. And furthermore, the verse supports his opinion, as it states: “Neither shall he go in to any dead bodies” (Leviticus 21:11). The plural form “bodies” indicates that two corpses can join together, as stated by Rabbi Akiva. Similarly, Rabbi Shimon says: All his days, Rabbi Akiva would deem a quarter-log of blood from two corpses ritually impure. Whether he retracted his opinion after he died, this I do not know. A Sage taught: Rabbi Shimon’s teeth blackened due to his fasts, which he undertook for uttering this irreverent comment about Rabbi Akiva.

(12) 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.

(2) 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.

§ Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And are the Sages able to discern precisely between produce that reached one-third of its growth and produce that reached less than one-third of its growth? Rabbi Zeira said to him: Do I not always tell you that you must not take yourself out of the bounds of the halakha? All the measures of the Sages are like this; they are precise and exact. For example, one who immerses himself in a ritual bath containing forty se’a of water is rendered pure, but in forty se’a less the tiny amount of a kortov, he cannot immerse and become pure in them. Similarly, an egg-bulk of impure food can render other food ritually impure, but an egg-bulk less even the tiny amount of a sesame seed does not render food ritually impure. So too, a piece of cloth three by three handbreadths in size is susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading, but a piece of cloth three by three handbreadths less one hair [nima] is not susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading. Rabbi Yirmeya then said: What I said is nothing, and my question had no basis, as it can be demonstrated that the Sages know how to determine that produce has reached one-third of its growth. As Rav Kahana was once asked by the other colleagues of the academy as follows: With regard to the omer offering that the Jewish people brought when they first entered Eretz Yisrael in the days of Joshua, from where did they bring it? If you say that this omer offering was brought from grain that grew in the possession of a gentile, there is a difficulty, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “You shall bring an omer of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest” (Leviticus 23:13), from which it can be derived that it must be your harvest, grown in the possession of a Jew, and not the harvest of a gentile.

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, it is as we said initially, that it comes to include one who is half-slave and half-freeman. And as for that which poses a difficulty to the opinion of Ravina, it is not difficult: Here it is in accordance with the initial version of the mishna, whereas there, Ravina’s statement, is in accordance with the ultimate version of the mishna. As we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 88a): One who is half-slave half-freeman serves his master one day and works for himself one day. This is the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai said to them:

You have remedied the situation of his master, who benefits fully from all his rights to the slave, but his own situation you have not remedied. How so? He is unable to marry a maidservant, as half of him is already free, and a free Jew may not marry a Canaanite maidservant. He is likewise unable to marry a free woman, as half of him is still a slave. 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.