Tosefta on Biblical and Rabbinic Law

1. When the sages entered the vineyard in Yavneh, they said: In the future, there will come a time when a person will seek a teaching from the teachings of the Torah and he will not find it, or from the teachings of the scribes, and he will not find it. As it says: Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, [when I will send a famine on the land; not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. They shall wander from sea to sea and from north to east,] they shall run to and fro, to seek out the word of God and they will not find it (Amos 8:11–12).

The word of God refers to prophecy.

The word of God refers to the end [of days].

The word of God means that no word of Torah will be like another.

They said: Let us begin from Hillel and Shammai!

Shammai says: [Dough made from] a kav of flour is liable for the dough offering, and Hillel says: From two kavs. And the sages say: [The law] is not according to the view [lit., words] of this one or according to the view of that one but rather [dough] from one-and-a-half kavs of flour is liable for the dough offering. [ . . . ]

3. Hillel says: A full hin of drawn water, which is ten logs, invalidates a ritual immersion pool, and Shammai says: A full hin of drawn water, which is twelve logs, invalidates a ritual immersion pool. And the sages say: [The law] is not according to the view of this one or according to the view of that one, but rather three logs of drawn water invalidate a ritual immersion pool.

A case: Two weavers came from the Dung Gate in Jerusalem and gave testimony in the name of Shemaya and Avtalyon that three logs of drawn water invalidate a ritual immersion pool. And the sages upheld their words.

And why are their place of origin and their craft mentioned? Is it not because there is no more degraded craft than weaving and no more degraded place than the Dung Gate, and yet the fathers of the world [the early sages who upheld the teaching reported by the weavers] did not insist on their view over a reported teaching. All the more so should a person not insist on his view over a reported teaching.

4. The halakhah always follows the view of the majority. The [dissenting] view of an individual is mentioned along with the view of the majority to negate it [the dissenting view]. R. Judah says: The [dissenting] view of an individual is mentioned along with the view of the majority so that if the times require it, they may rely on it. And the sages say that the view of an individual is mentioned along with the view of the majority so that if one pronounces “pure” and another pronounces “impure” according to the view of R. Eliezer, they may say, “You heard this according to the view of R. Eliezer.”

5. If one inquires of one sage, and he pronounces [something] impure, one may not inquire of another sage. If one inquires of one sage, and he pronounces pure, one may not inquire of another sage. If there were two sages, one who prohibits and one who permits, one who pronounces impure and one who pronounces pure, if there is another sage, they inquire of him, and if not, they follow [lit., walk after] the more stringent sage.

R. Joshua ben Korḥa says: If it is a matter of Torah law, we follow the more stringent view; if it is a matter of rabbinic law [lit., words of the scribes], we follow the more lenient view.