Question: In our Mishnah, Beis Shamai permit the Tzaros to the brothers and Beis Hillel forbid them!

Answer (Reish Lakish): Beis Shamai did not follow their own teachings.

(R. Yochanan): Beis Shamai followed their own teachings.

Rav and Shmuel also argued about this. Rav says that Beis Shamai did not follow their own teachings, and Shmuel says that they did.

Question: Regarding what period do they argue?

Before the Bas Kol (voice from Shamayim that announced that the Halachah follows Beis Hillel), all should agree they followed their teachings;

After the Bas Kol, all should agree they did not follow their teachings!

Answer #1: They argue about before the Bas Kol.

Beis Hillel were the majority. This explains why Reish Lakish says that Beis Shamai did not follow their own teachings;

R. Yochanan says that Beis Shamai followed their own teachings. We follow the majority among equal Chachamim, but Beis Shamai were sharper.

Answer #2: They argue about after the Bas Kol.

Reish Lakish says that Beis Shamai did not follow their own teachings due to the Bas Kol;

R. Yochanan holds like R. Yehoshua, who says that we do not heed a Bas Kol.

Question: According to the opinion that Beis Shamai followed their own teachings, this transgresses "Lo Sisgodedu"!

Answer #1 (Abaye): The Isur applies only to two Batei Din in one city, when one rules like Beis Shamai and one like Beis Hillel.

Batei Din in different cities may rule differently.

Objection (Rava): Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel are like opposing Batei Din in the same city!

Answer #2 (Rava): The Isur is when half the judges on a Beis Din in a city rule like Beis Shamai, and half rule like Beis Hillel.

We may have two opposing Batei Din in one city.

Question (Beraisa): In R. Eliezer's region, they would cut trees on Shabbos to make coals to forge a knife for circumcision. In R. Yosi ha'Galili's region they ate fowl with milk.

Inference: They cut trees in R. Eliezer's region, but not in R. Akiva's.

(Beraisa - R. Akiva): Any Melachah that can be done before Shabbos is not permitted on Shabbos (for the sake of Milah).

Answer: We said that different regions may conduct differently!

Question: What was the intent of the one who asked the question?

Answer: He thought that because Shabbos is so stringent, it is like one place (all places must conduct the same way).

Question: When R. Avahu would visit R. Yehoshua ben Levi's region he would move a lamp on Shabbos. He would not do so in R. Yochanan's region. (This shows that the practice was different in the two regions!)

Objection: This is no question. We said that different regions may conduct differently!

Response: The question is, how could R. Avahu be inconsistent!

Answer: Really, he holds like R. Yehoshua ben Levi. In R. Yochanan's area he conducted stringently to show honor to R. Yochanan.

Question: He should have been concerned that his attendant will not know this!

Answer: He told his attendant.

(Beraisa): Even though these prohibit and these permit, men of Beis Shamai did not refrain from marrying women of Beis Hillel and vice-versa.

Question: If Beis Shamai did not follow their own teachings, we understand how they could intermarry. However, if they followed their own teachings, how could they intermarry? (Beis Shamai says that Tzaras Ervah does Yibum or Chalitzah; Beis Hillel exempts.)

Granted, Beis Shamai could marry women of Beis Hillel. Beis Shamai consider the children of Tzaras Ervah (who married without Yibum or Chalitzah) like children of Chayavei Lavin, and it is permitted to marry them.

However how could Beis Hillel marry women of Beis Shamai? Beis Hillel say that Yibum of Tzaras Ervah is Chayavei Kerisos, and the children are Mamzerim!

Suggestion: Perhaps the Tana holds that Arayos of Kares do not make Mamzerim.

Rejection: R. Elazar taught that even though Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about Tzaros, they agree that Mamzerim come only from Arayos punishable by Kares!

Conclusion: We must say that Beis Shamai did not follow their own teachings!

Rejection: Really, they followed their own teachings. Members of Beis Shamai would inform Beis Hillel if there had been cases of Tzaras Ervah in the family, and they would not intermarry in such cases.

Support (Seifa): In spite of all the disputes about Tum'ah, members of each school would rely on Taharos of the other school.

We understand this if they would inform each other (if the Taharos were Tamei according to the other school). However if they did not inform each other, how could they rely on each other?

(Tosfos' text): It is not difficult how Beis Hillel could rely on Beis Shamai. (Almost everywhere they argue), Beis Hillel are Metaher and Beis Shamai are Metamei.

But how could Beis Shamai rely on Beis Hillel? They are Metamei what Beis Hillel considers Tahor!

Conclusion: They must have informed each other.

Question: Why is the proof from Taharos better than the proof from intermarriage?

Answer: We might have thought that Tzaros become known (but they did not rely on informing each other).

(R. Elazar): Even though Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about Tzaros, they agree that Mamzerim come only from Arayos punishable by Kares.

Question: Who admit to whom?

Suggestion: Beis Shamai admit to Beis Hillel.

Rejection: If Tzaras Ervah married without Yibum or Chalitzah, this is only Chayavei Lavin (according to Beis Shamai), obviously the children are not Mamzerim!

Answer #1: Rather, Beis Hillel admit to Beis Shamai.

Objection: If Tzaras Ervah did Yibum this is Chayavei Kerisos (the children are Mamzerim)!

Answer #2: Really, Beis Shamai admit to Beis Hillel. R. Elazar comes to disagree with R. Akiva, who says that the children of Chayavei Lavin are Mamzerim.

(Beraisa): Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argued about the following: Tzaros, sisters (who fall to Yibum together - 26a), a Get Yashan (the couple were alone together between the writing and the giving of the Get), a Safek Eshes Ish (Mi'un after Nisu'in), one who divorced on condition that he will die from his current illness, a divorced couple who spent the night in an inn, and Kidushin with a Perutah or something worth a Perutah. Nevertheless, Beis Shamai did not refrain from marrying women of Beis Hillel, and vice-versa. This shows that they conducted with dearness and friendship to each other - "Veha'Emes veha'Shalom Ehavu";

R. Shimon: Each school would refrain when certain (that something is forbidden to them because the other school's ruling had been followed), but not when unsure.

Question: If Beis Shamai followed their own teachings, we understand why they refrained;

However, if they did not follow their own teachings, why did they refrain?

Counter-question: Is this logical? Even if they followed their own teachings, this explains only why Beis Hillel refrained from women of Beis Shamai, since they descend from Chayavei Kerisos. It does not explain why Beis Shamai refrained from women of Beis Hillel. They are Bnei Chayavei Lavin, so they are permitted!

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): They refrained from marrying the Tzarah herself.

Answer: Also if they did not follow their own teachings, we can say that they refrained from marrying the Tzarah herself.

Question: Why did they refrain only from definite problems? - Even doubtful problems are forbidden!

Correction: Rather, they didn't refrain in a Stam case (when they did not know that it was forbidden to them), for each would inform the other (when it was forbidden to them).

Question: Presumably, this teaches that they acted with dearness and friendship to each other. This is like the first Tana!

Answer: Indeed, R. Shimon taught the entire Beraisa.