MISHNAH: All are obligated to appear1To fulfill the biblical commandment to “be seen” before God on the occasion of the three festivals of pilgrimage which are called either steps (Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16) or walking occasions (Ex. 23:14, 34:23). The cases exempted from this biblical duty are defined in the Halakhah. except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the child, and the sexless, and the hermaphrodite, women, and unemancipated slaves, the lame, and the blind, and the sick, and the child, and anybody who cannot ascend on his feet. Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, any who cannot hold on to his father’s hand and climb from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, as it is said, three walking occasions2Ex. 23:14.. HALAKHAH: “All are obligated to appear,” etc. The Mishnah is about the sacrifice of appearance3While it is an obligation to appear in the Temple on one of the holidays of pilgrimage, it is sinful to enter there without bringing a personal sacrifice during the holiday (as specified in Mishnah 2), Ex. 34:20., but the child is obligated in the personal appearance4The obligation of Ex. 34:20 cannot apply to children, who are not subject to monetary obligations. They also cannot be obligated in any other way, but their parents are obligated to instruct them to do the right things. Quoted by Rashi ad2a.. From the following, assemble the people, men, women, and toddlers5Deut. 31:12.. And are not children6The expression קטן in the Mishnah is used to designate children with a measure of understanding, in contrast to תינוק. older than toddlers? 7The same text is in Soṭah3:4 (Notes 107–109, ס); Avot dR. Nathan A Chap. 18. As it was stated: It happened that Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa and Rebbi Eleazar Ḥasma were walking from Jabneh to Lydda when they were visiting Rebbi Joshua in Beqi`in8An unidentified place. It cannot be the place of the same name in Galilee.. He asked them, what was new today in the House of Study? They said to him, we all are your students and drink from your waters. He said to them, even so, it is impossible that there not be a new idea every day in the House of Study. Who stayed there over the Sabbath? They said to him, Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. And what was his text? Assemble the people, men, women, and toddlers. He started by saying, since men come to learn and women to listen, why do the toddlers come? It must be to give a reward to those who bring them. He said to them, a generation is not orphaned which counts Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah among them. It follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagrees with Ben Azzai, as we have stated there9Mishnah Soṭah3:4. R. Eleazar ben Azariah does not agree that women come to study Torah equally with the men.: “From here Ben Azzai said, a person is obligated to teach Torah to his daughter, that in case she would drink she knows that merit suspends.” The deaf-mute. 10This text also appears in Terumot1:2, Notes 94–102 (ת), Yebamot 12:5, Note 104 (י). The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So they should hear and learn11Deut. 31:12.. So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So they should learn, so they should teach12Excluding the mute who cannot teach. Babli 3a.. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated13Mishnah Terumot 1:2.: “A ḥereš who speaks and does not hear should not give heave” and we thought that one who speaks but does not hear is ḥereš, one who hears but does not speak is [not]14To be deleted as shown by the parallel texts. ḥereš. But we have stated:15Mishnah Yebamot 12:5. “Ḥaliṣah is invalid if performed for a ḥereš man, or by a ḥereš woman, or by a woman for an underage male.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say he shall say16Deut. 25:8., she shall say17Deut. 25:9. Without these declarations the procedure is invalid. Therefore the deaf but not mute may participate in valid ḥaliṣah. Babli Yebamot104b.. We also have stated13Mishnah Terumot 1:2.: “A ḥereš mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said that the principles of Rebbi are no principles18Since the use of ḥereš as a technical term is inconsistent in the Mishnah.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, what about a person deaf in one ear19Is he required to appear in the Temple at Tabernacles in the Sabbatical year? Babli Ḥagigah3a.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the disagreement between the Rabbis and Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons make coats20Ex. 28:40.. The Rabbis said, two coats for each one21Since “coats” is a plural and an otherwise undetermined plural always means 2. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, ed. Ph. Longworth; London 1967.. Rebbi Yose said, even one coat for each one. What is the Rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? For a hundred sons of Aaron make coats22The plural may be explained without reference to the persons involved since the coats are public property.. And here, read this Torah in front of all of Israel into their ears23Deut. 31:11.. The Rabbis are saying, two ears for each of them. Rebbi Yose is saying, even a single ear for each of them. “The insane.” Rebbi Eleazar said, you were shown to know24Deut. 4:35.. “The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak25While a child can hear and speak, it usually will not understand (meant here by “hear”) and it cannot teach (understood by “speak”).? They turned around and said, all your males26Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16, description of who is required to appear in the Temple on a festival of pilgrimage. Babli 4a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)., to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn1To fulfill the biblical commandment to “be seen” before God on the occasion of the three festivals of pilgrimage which are called either steps (Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16) or walking occasions (Ex. 23:14, 34:23). The cases exempted from this biblical duty are defined in the Halakhah., to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?]27Corrector’s addition, unnecessary. Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable28According to the Babli, 6a, this question refers to a deaf-mute child whom the experts give a chance of recovering hearing and/or speech.? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth]29The corrector’s change introduces the Babli’s idiom; it should be deleted. The expression means that one was seeking proof in extraneous sources when the answer is readily available intrinsically. and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable30In this discussion, it should be pointed out that the child is never liable, and cannot be liable before becoming an adult. The question is whether the parent is liable to bring the child to the Temple.. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult]31Corrector’s change, misunderstanding the text, to be deleted. The scribe’s text also implies that there should be no distinction made between the minor and the adult deaf-mute. deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. “The sexless.” Everybody agrees that a sexless who was torn open and turned out to be a male32By an accident or an operation his skin was torn and it turned out that he had penis and testicles. Then he is a male and liable for all obligations of a male. Since a male is required to appear in the Temple on a holiday, but not before, now that he knows that he is a male he is liable like everybody else. on the first day of a holiday is liable. Where do they disagree? On the remaining days. Ḥizqiah said, he shall be seen, he shall be seen33Ex.23:17,34:23. In both places only Passover is mentioned as going on for 7 days; Pentecost and Tabernacles appear as single holidays. Since the obligation to appear is repeated, it follows that the seven day holiday has to be treated like a one-day holiday. A person not obligated on the one day cannot become obligated later., he who is liable on the first {day} is liable on the second; he who is not liable on the first {day} is not liable on the second. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan inferred this from the Second Pesaḥ. As Rebbi Joḥanan said there34Babli 2a, 9a, Pesaḥim93a. Since the Second Pesaḥ is biblical institution for people not liable to bring the first of the 14th of Nisan, it proves that make-up days are also for people not liable for appearance on the first day of a holiday., the Second Pesaḥ is make-up for the first, so he says here, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Hoshaia said, all seven {days} are obligatory35They are independent possibilities for fulfilling the obligation of appearance, including the six days following the one-day holiday of Pentecost.. What results between them? A proselyte who converted on one of the other days. In Ḥizqiah’s opinion he is not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions he is liable. Is it the same for the impure one36A person impure on the first day, to become pure on a later day.? In Ḥizqiah’s opinion is he not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions is he liable? Rebbi Yose said, there he is suitable37Therefore he certainly is not liable for Ḥisqia and R. Joḥanan; the question remains open for R. Hoshaia.; the tearing caused it. But here the impure person himself is not suitable38Mishnah Shabbat19:3. The entire paragraph essentially is found in Šabbat19, Notes 99–109, Yebamot8:1.. “The hermaphrodite.” All your males26Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16, description of who is required to appear in the Temple on a festival of pilgrimage. Babli 4a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)., to exclude the hermaphrodite. There38Mishnah Shabbat19:3. The entire paragraph essentially is found in Šabbat19, Notes 99–109, Yebamot8:1., we have stated: “One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt39Whether the baby was actually born on a Sabbath or maybe on Friday or Sunday. In the latter case he may not be circumcised on the Sabbath. {or} for a hermaphrodite; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite.” What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case40Does R. Jehudah agree with the Mishnah which excludes the hermaphrodite from the duty of pilgrimage?? Let us hear from the following: Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one41Who is excluded from the duty of pilgrimage. Tosephta 1:1, Babli 2a, Sanhedrin4b, Arakhin 2b.. Nobody says “neither” unless he agrees with the preceding statement42That the hermaphrodite is excluded.. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse43Gen. 17:14, establishing the duty of circumcision. The verse emphasizing male is not needed to exclude female circumcision since the limb to be circumcised always is referred to as flesh, and therefore designates the only boneless limb, the penis, which characterizes males.. The rabbis explain uncircumcised. Why does the verse say, an uncircumcised male? Only if he be totally male44While the hermaphrodite can be circumcised, having a penis, and has to be circumcised since his maleness may be the dominant trait, he cannot be classified as male.. Rebbi Jehudah explains male45Babli Šabbat 137a. Instead of all your males, he reads your total maleness.. Why does the verse say, uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite. “Women”. All your males26Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16, description of who is required to appear in the Temple on a festival of pilgrimage. Babli 4a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)., excluding women46Sifry Deut. 143; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333).. “Slaves”. Let us hear from the following: Three times a year shall all your males be seen47Ex. 23:17. Babli 4a., anybody who has no master but the Holy One, praise to Him. This excludes the slave who has another master. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, from where that anybody who keeps the commandment of appearance is like one who greets the Divine Presence? From this, Three times a year shall all your males be seen before the face of the Master, the Eternal, etc47Ex. 23:17. Babli 4a.. “The lame”, for it is written, walking occasions1To fulfill the biblical commandment to “be seen” before God on the occasion of the three festivals of pilgrimage which are called either steps (Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16) or walking occasions (Ex. 23:14, 34:23). The cases exempted from this biblical duty are defined in the Halakhah.. “The sick”, for it is written, you shall enjoy48Deut. 16:14. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333).. “The old”, for it is written, walking occasions. Rebbi Yose said, both are for leniency. If he can enjoy but not walk, I am reading for him walking occasions. If he can walk but not enjoy, I am reading for him you shall enjoy. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel explain the same verse. The House of Shammai are saying, one verse says your males26Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16, description of who is required to appear in the Temple on a festival of pilgrimage. Babli 4a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)., and another verse says, walking occasions1To fulfill the biblical commandment to “be seen” before God on the occasion of the three festivals of pilgrimage which are called either steps (Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16) or walking occasions (Ex. 23:14, 34:23). The cases exempted from this biblical duty are defined in the Halakhah.. Take in between them the one able to ride on his father’s shoulder. But even a {very} small one can ride on his father’s shoulder; must he fulfill his obligation? But one who sees his father’s shoulder and runs to him49For the House of Shammai the obligation of appearance extends to all boys able to ride on their father’s shoulders without being held by their father.. The House of Hillel explain: one verse says your males, and another verse says, walking occasions. Take in between them the one able to grab his father’s hand. But in matters of purity you are saying, if he grabs his father’s hand, in matters of doubt he is treated as intelligent being50By Pentateuchal standards, only intelligent Jews can become impure (Mishnah Taharot 3:6). (The impurity of Gentiles is rabbinic, i. e., popular usage traceable to First Temple times.) Therefore a baby cannot be impure (but he cannot be pure either and as such is prevented from entering the Temple). It is now stated that as long as a parent has to grab his hand to make him walk with the parent he is considered unable to be asked in matters of purity and therefore impervious to purity. If such a child touches food prepared in purity, it remains pure. But if the child by himself takes his parent’s hand, he is treated as intelligent being and since he may be asked whether he touched certain things he is subject to impurity and if he touched pure food and does not remember what he did before this the food has to be treated as impure.. If his father grabs his hand, [in case of doubt]51Corrector’s addition; correct but unnecessary in Yerushalmi style. he is treated as deaf-and-dumb. But here in both cases he is liable52The rules of appearance (which refer to the parent’s obligation to bring his child) and those of impurity (which refer to the status of the child) are not comparable.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Where does one appear53While the lay person is forbidden to appear in the Temple without a sacrifice (Ex. 23:15, 34:20), this is an obligation separate from that of appearance. The question is if the latter is satisfied only in the Temple district or already in the enlarged sacred district, representing the camp of the Levites in the desert (Num. 1:50).? On the Temple Mount or in the Temple courtyards? He told him, let us hear from the following54Tosephta 1:1. Babli 4b, Yebamot72b, from another verse Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333). Since a sacrifice may be brought only in the Temple and the impure person may not enter, he may not bring; one concludes that he need not come.: “The impure is exempt from appearance, for it is written, you shall come there and bring there.” And one impure in the impurity of the dead may not enter the Temple Mount55This is not quite exact, Mishnah Kelim1:8. The person whose impurity originates in his body may not enter the Temple Mount; the one impure by the impurity of the dead may not enter the immediate surroundings of the Temple domain; the person not impure but not pure may not enter the Temple courtyards.. This implies that appearance is in the Temple courtyards. From where does one measure56This refers to the statement of the Mishnah that the minor must be brought to the Temple if he is able to walk from Jerusalem to the Temple.? from the wall or from the houses? Samuel stated, from the Siloam. And the Siloam was in the middle of the capital57The pond is rather close to the Temple but at the foot of a steep hill. No indications are given how differences in level are to be commuted into distances.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May one send one’s appearance sacrifice58Which is required (Note 53) and its minimal value determined in Mishnah 2. May one satisfy the obligation of appearance by paying another person to present the sacrifice in the payor’s name? by another person? He said to him, let us hear from the following: “Those afflicted by scabies or polyps59Greek πολύπους “multipede”, according to the commentators of the Babli a putrid growth on the nose which is extremely bad smelling. are exempt from appearance, since it is written you shall come there and bring there60Deut. 12:5–6. You shall come is in singular form, to be interpreted as collective. You shall bring is in the plural, addressed to every pilgrim separately. This version exempts everybody unable to join a group, in this case because of his unbearable body smell (Babli 4b).. The impure is exempt from appearance since it is written, when all of Israel comes61Deut. 31:12., etc. The one able to come with all of Israel brings; the one unable to come with all of Israel does not bring.” Could he not send his appearance sacrifice by another person? Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he may not send his appearance sacrifice by another person. Rebbi Shammai asked, or maybe the other way. Those afflicted by scabies or polyps (are exempt from appearance, since it is written when all of Israel comes. Rebbi Shammai turned around and said, Those afflicted by scabies or polyps) even though they cannot come with all of Israel, they can come by themselves62Since coming and bringing are mentioned in separate verses, they are separate obligations. The person who smells bad is exempt from joining a group but still obligated to appear in the Temple.. The impure one is unable to come by himself and with all of Israel63He is prohibited from bringing a sacrifice and exempt from joining a group which he would contaminate by his touch.. If he separated65He designated an animal from his herd as his sacrifice for the coming pilgrimage. Since it does not say “he dedicated”, the designation is not a formal dedication. Nevertheless, Mishnah Qiddušin 1:7 states that a promise to Heaven is to be enforced like delivery to a person. his festival offering and died, do the heirs have to bring it? Rebbi Ila said, shall be seen, has to be seen66Since the deceased is buried, the designation becomes void.. He who can come brings, he who cannot come does not bring. Rebbi Ze`ira said, following Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Jonathan who both said, you have to redeem any first born of your sons, even after death, and here, they shall not appear before My Presence empty-handed, even after death67Ex. 34:20. There seems to be no reason why the redemption of the first-born is mentioned in the same verse as the prohibition to appear in the Temple empty-handed. It is explained that just as the redemption of the first born is an obligation not eliminated by the absence of a father, so the obligation of the sacrifice of appearance is not eliminated by the death of the votary.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, there is a disagreement between Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan, regarding what we have stated there68Mishnah Qinnim2:5., “A woman69After childbirth, which obligates here for a purification and an elevation sacrifice (Lev. 12:1–8.) who brought her purification sacrifice and died, the heirs have to bring her elevation sacrifice. Her elevation sacrifice and she died, the heirs shall not bring her purification sacrifice69After childbirth, which obligates here for a purification and an elevation sacrifice (Lev. 12:1–8.).” Samuel said, if it was separated70Since a purification sacrifice in all cases is a personal obligation, at the death of the person any purification sacrifice already dedicated as such can neither be sacrificed nor redeemed. If it is not yet dedicated it cannot be dedicated. Therefore it is technically impossible for the heirs to bring her purification sacrifice.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it was not separated. Where do we hold? If they inherited real estate71By strict talmudic rules only real estate is subject to claims by creditors. The extension of liens to movables is Gaonic, not relevant here. The rule of Mishnah Qiddušin 1:7 creates a lien on the estate only if it contains real estate. Since the woman’s obligation was created at the moment of childbirth, there seems to be no reason why Samuel could limit the obligation., does Samuel say if it was separated? If they inherited movables72In the absence of real estate, according to the rule explained in the preceding Note the obligation should be unenforceable even for R. Joḥanan., does Rebbi Joḥanan say, even if it was not separated? What is the difference between them? If they inherited real estate, in Samuel’s opinion one does neither claim it nor taking pledges for it73The Temple authorities are required to insist on prompt liquidation of all dues to the Temple. The verse (Deut. 23:22) require prompt payment of all vows. By rabbinic interpretation this means before the passing of the next three festivals of pilgrimage. Since there is a time limit, the officers of the Temple are required to ask for the prompt fulfillment of the vow and are entitled to take pledges from the votary to enforce their demand. But since the heirs did not make any vow, the time limit cannot be applied to them and the powers of the Temple officials are limited; for Samuel they are eliminated but not for R. Joḥanan.; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one even takes pledges. If they inherited movables, in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one claims it (and is) [but is not]74There seems to be no justification for the corrector’s addition. According to Samuel, Qiddušin 1:7 declares that a promise to Heaven is the equivalent of a civil contract; if the contract would become unenforceable, so is the obligation to Heaven. According to R. Joḥanan the obligation can be enforced since the equivalent of the sacrifice was Heaven’s property and as such could not be part of the estate. taking pledges for it. In Samuel’s opinion one does not claim it.
MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, the sacrifice of appearance is two silver coins, and the festival sacrifice one obolus The sacrifice of appearance is an elevation sacrifice, not for human consumption. The festival sacrifice is a family well-being sacrifice providing the meat to the festival meal to be consumed in purity as part of the commandment to enjoy the holiday. The obolus in the Augustean system is the smallest silver coin, 1/6 of a silver denar, about 0.6g of silver.. But the House of Hillel say, the sacrifice of appearance is one silver obolus, and the festival sacrifice two silver coins. HALAKHAH: The sacrifice of appearance is elevation offerings, but the festival sacrifice is well-being offerings. The House of Shammai are saying, one increases elevation offerings and diminishes well-being offerings. The House of Hillel are saying, one diminishes elevation offerings and increases well-being offerings. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The House of Shammai infer from the sacrifices [of Pentecost76The only holiday offering by the public including well-being sacrifices. The presentation of bread from the new wheat harvest is accompanied by elevation sacrifices of one bull, 2 rams, and 7 sheep, as well as a well-being sacrifice of 2 sheep (Lev. 23:18–19).; the House of Hillel infer from the sacrifices] of the princes77All of the tribal leaders brought the same sacrifice for the inauguration of the Tent of Meeting, 1 bull, 1 ram, 1 sheep as elevation offering but 2 bulls, 5 rams, 5 goats, 5 sheep as well-being sacrifice (Num. 7). Babli 6a.. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, is it not better to be instructed from a private offering about private offerings and not to be instructed from public offerings about a private offering? The House of Shammai said to them, it is better to be instructed by something applicable to the future; do not refer to the sacrifice of the princes which is not applicable to the future. It was stated78Tosephta 1:4; cf. Babli 6a/b.: “There is about the sacrifice of appearance what does not apply to the festival sacrifice, and about the festival sacrifice what does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance. For the sacrifice of appearance is totally for the High79Everything is burned on the altar; there is no part even for the Cohanim.; this does not apply to the festival sacrifice. The festival sacrifice was in use before the Word80The theophany of Sinai. and after the Word; this does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance.” Was the festival sacrifice in use before the Word81Before the Giving of the Torah there could be no commandments and no commanded sacrifices.? The language of festival sacrifice was in use before the Word82Ex. 5:1.: send My people that they present Me with festival sacrifices in the desert.“78Tosephta 1:4; cf. Babli 6a/b. And joy applies to matters which are his property and matters which are others’ property; whether matters usually used for the purpose or matters not usually used for the purpose83One may enjoy the holiday being invited to somebody else’s well-being sacrifice, and even with meat from an animal not admissible as sacrifice.. But those apply only to his own property and matters usually used for the purpose.” Rebbi Yose said, and why do we not say, anybody liable for a sacrifice of appearance is liable for joy but there are those liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance: “Women are liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance84Tosephta 1:4; obviously not part of R. Yose’s baraita text.”? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, and you shall enjoy85“Enjoyment” of the meat of well-being sacrifices is mentioned without any reference to holidays in Deut. 12:12, and as a requirement of the holidays in Deut. 16:11,14,15., even from a butcher shop86Latin macellum. According to his argument, the duty to eat meat on holidays is biblical also after the destruction of the Temple when sacrificial meat is not available.. Rebbi Eleazar said, joy is mentioned here and joy in mentioned there. Since the joy mentioned there refers to well-being sacrifices so also joy mentioned here refers to well-being sacrifices87The comparison of the verses quoted in Note 85 shows that the biblical requirement is intrinsically connected with well-being sacrifices and therefore became moot with the destruction of the Temple.. Rav Ḥuna ate (deflated things) [simply]88The corrector considered the scribe’s otherwise unknown פשש as scribal error and replaced it with a known word with similar letters. The scribe may have intended a word like Arabic פסּ “to deflate”. all seven days89Following R. Eleazar he did not accept the duty to eat meat on a holiday as scriptural and ate simple fare during the holiday week.. 90This text is parallel to a somewhat defective text in Peah1:1 (Notes 37–57); in places the Rome ms. of Zeraim has a more complete text. Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins91The amounts stated in Mishnah 2 have biblical status. are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything92One may appear in the Temple with one sacrifice for the appearance and one for the family holiday; no minimal expenditure is required. The monetary minimum is purely a rabbinic one. Babli 7a.; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages93There are many biblical precepts that are applied only to some minimal amount and volume. None of these are spelled out in the Torah; they are all customary or rabbinic formulations.? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse94All rules of defilement by parts of a corpse apply only if a minimum size of the volume of one olive is present. Hence, somebody in a house in which less than that volume of a corpse is present may go to the Temple without the purification procedure of the ashes of the Red Cow even though going there in impurity is a strict biblical prohibition., the volume of an olive from a cadaver95To bring a sin offering for having eaten meat from a cadaver needs this minimum amount; the same minimum applies to the impurity caused by touching or carrying pieces of the cadaver of an otherwise kosher animal., the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile96The minimum volume from a carcass that causes the severe impurity incurred by touching dead reptiles.. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed97Ex. 23:15, 34:20., with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this98These verses (and an additional one in Deut.) insist that one may not appear empty-handed; this must mean that a negligible amount is counted as nothing and, therefore, is forbidden by the Torah. is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities99Since one is required and permitted to bring a sin-offering only if he ate more than the volume of an olive, he is forbidden to bring one if he ate less than that volume. Hence, the determination of that volume is essential. In the Babli Yoma 80a the interpretation is that not the rule of “volume of an olive” might change but rather its interpretation. Not only are antique measures never defined to exact standards, also modern interpretations of “volume of an olive” vary on a scale of 1 to 30. Hence, once the Temple is rebuilt an authoritative re-interpretation is needed even according to R. Joḥanan.; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan100Instead of this totally impossible reading (R. Jonathan precedes R. Joḥanan) read with the Peah text: R. Yose. said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals101In the Babli 8a it is explained that the obligation to spend an obolus and two silver coins must be satisfied by unencumbered money. Now four years out of seven there is a second tithe on agricultural produce of the Land of Israel. That second tithe is the property of the farmer but it must be consumed in Jerusalem; it also may be redeemed by money and the money taken to Jerusalem and there spent on food to be consumed in Jerusalem. So one may assume that many people on their pilgrimage for the holiday have money and, in case they are priests, animals of the tithe that they want to eat in Jerusalem to absolve themselves at the same time of the obligations of pilgrimage and Second Tithe. According to Ḥizqiah, on the first day of the holiday one may bring small and cheap animals as obligatory sacrifices and then use the money of tithes for additional Ḥagigah offerings but one may not add the money of Second Tithes to profane money to buy one large animal for any of the two obligations.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money102R. Joḥanan holds that one may add money (if only the basic amount is profane) but not animals (since no animal worth less than two pieces of silver is acceptable as Ḥagigah.). Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday103If these animals retain the status of Ḥagigah, they may be sacrificed on the last day of Pesaḥ or Sukkot which are also full holidays. If, however, they have only the status of sacrifices in fulfillment of a vow (since any dedication as sacrifice is a vow to bring the animal to the Temple), then they may be slaughtered only during the intermediate days of the holiday or after its conclusion, and they do not push aside holiday prohibitions. (Babli 8b.)? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push104Since each animal was bought with money dedicated for Ḥagigah, they all have the status of Ḥagigah.. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push105Since one may not adjoin money, only the first animal was Ḥagigah, the rest are not and cannot be used on a full holiday.. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds106Even during the intermediate days of the holiday, when one’s biblical obligation of appearing in the Temple with a sacrifice has already been satisfied, he can add money to the original money and still the animals bought will fall under the category of Ḥagigah. But when he declares that it is enough, the next money spent will no longer buy Ḥagigah sacrifices. This extension of R. Joḥanan’s statement is not a logical consequence of his earlier one. and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.
MISHNAH: Elevation sacrifices on a holiday come from profane money107Since nothing of the sacrifice is permitted to humans, and Second Tithe money must be spent on food for the farmer’s family, tithe money may never be used for elevation sacrifices, holiday or no holiday. and well-being offerings from tithe money108Even though a small part of any well-being sacrifice is burned on the altar, it is explicitly permitted by a verse to use tithe money; Deut. 12:6.. On the first day of any holiday109This is the meaning of the word here, not “Tabernacles.”, the House of Shammai are saying from profane money110The House of Shammai permit slaughter of sacrifices on a full holiday only if they are an obligation of the holiday. Therefore they permit on the full holiday only the holiday sacrifice which for them must have the value of one (profane) obolus, and forbid to add money of Second Tithe to this profane amount. But the House of Hillel, for whom the basic obligation is 2 profane oboloi, permit to add tithe money to buy a large animal for the family celebration. but the House of Hillel are saying from tithe money. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanhum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: So answer the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel: May any obligatory sacrifice come from tithe111It is implied in Halakhah 2 that the 1 and 2 oboloi required in Mishnah 2 must be profane money.? They said to them, if it were a weekday, could he not bring one from profane money and add the tithe money? And here he brings one from profane money and adds tithe money112Also on the holiday.. From where that one may add [tithe money]? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is said here measure113Deut. 16:10, referring to the holiday of Pentecost which has no intermediary days. The root of the word is taken (with many moderns) to be נשׂא., and it is said there, for you cannot carry it114Deut. 14:24, referring to Second Tithe; same root.. Since carrying mentioned there refers to tithe, so also here tithe. Rebbi Eleazar said, it mentions joy here and it mentions joy there115“Joy” as commandment to enjoy meat is repeatedly mentioned for holidays in Deut. 16, and referring to Second Tithe in Deut. 14:26.. Since joy mentioned there refers to tithe, so also joy mentioned here refers to tithe. Could not all of them be brought from tithe money? Ulla bar Ismael said, it is said here measure and it is said there, the gift for Benjamin exceeded116Gen. 43:34, same root.. Since gift which is mentioned there refers to one as principal117The gift to every brother. and the remainder addition, so also here one is principal and the remainder addition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, are not the voluntary well-being offerings like the well-being offerings of the holiday? Why does he add those verses?118Why are those somewhat shaky derivations needed at all? To tell you that for them one pushes aside the holiday119To justify the House of Hillel who in matters of well-being sacrifices treat full holidays on the same level as the intermediate days..
MISHNAH: Israel fulfill their obligation with vows120An animal brought to fulfill a vow that the votary takes upon himself the obligation to bring a certain kind of sacrifice., and voluntary gifts121A voluntary gift is a vow to bring a designated animal as sacrifice. If this animal dies or becomes disqualified for the altar the votary has no obligation to offer a replacement. and animal tithe122From the rancher’s herd every tenth calf has to be brought to the Temple as sacrifice and is to be consumed by the rancher’s family in purity; no part is given to the Cohanim. All these sacrifices have no connection with the holiday but since the pilgrimage is the natural occasion to liquidate all obligations towards the Temple, they are recommended as means to fulfill the obligation to celebrate the joy of holiday by the consumption of meat., and the Cohanim with purification sacrifices, and reparation sacrifices123These are most holy sacrifices and the parts not burned on the altar have to be consumed by the adult male Cohanim in the Temple domain., and breast and thigh125The parts given to the Cohen from well- being sacrifices, to be consumed by the Cohen’s family in purity within the walls of the city., and firstlings124They are brought as sacrifice and consumed by the Cohen’s family in purity within the walls of the city., but not with birds126Which according to biblical standards do not qualify as “meat”. or cereal sacrifices. HALAKHAH: 127This paragraph also is Sukkah5:4, explained there in Notes 73–82. Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: With pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage128As regards the obligation to bring well-being sacrifices for the consumption of meat.. Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated: With the pilgrimage offering of the Fourteenth one fulfills the obligation of joy but one does not fulfill the one of well-being offerings? Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it that he slaughtered it on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, if he slaughtered it on the holiday it is not a festival offering of the Fourteenth. What about it? Rebbi Ze`ira said, when we still were there, we heard stated Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. When we came up to here we heard stated, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: only be joyful129Deut. 16:15., to add the night of the las festival day for joy. Or maybe also the nights of the firs day of the festival? Or inverse? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and you shall be joyous on your festival of pilgrimage130Deut. 16:14.. When you are obligated for a sacrifice of pilgrimage you are obligated for joy. They objected, did we not state, “hallel and joy eight”131Mishnah Sukkah4:1.? Think of it, if the first day of the holiday falls on a Sabbath! He cannot slaughter on the eve of the holiday since Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, with pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. He cannot slaughter on the holiday since we already have learned that the pilgrimage offering does not push aside the Sabbath. When did they say, Hallel and joy eight? Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat132If the first day is a Sabbath, all required holiday sacrifices are brought on the altar. They all are holocausts except for the goat as purification offering whose meat is eaten by the Cohanim. But since it is a Sabbath, it may not be cooked or roasted for private use and the meat must be eaten raw. The Babli Pesaḥim 71a holds that eating raw meat is no joy.. “But not with birds or cereal sacrifices.” For it is written slaughter133“Joy” is connected with bloody sacrifice in Deut. 27:7. Different verses are quoted to the same effect in Sifry Deut. 141,142..
MISHNAH: He who has many eaters and a small budget brings many well-being offerings and few elevation offerings. Few eaters and a large budget, he brings many elevation offerings and few well-being offerings134The meat of a well-being offering has to be consumed by the end of the following day. One has to avoid letting sacral meat become disqualified.. Both few, for this one it was said “one obolus, two silver coins.” Both ample, for this one it was said135Deut. 16:17., each man according to his means, corresponding to the blessing by the Eternal, your God, which He gave you. HALAKHAH: If he is poor but generous, I am reading for him, each man according to his means, rich but stingy, I am reading for him, corresponding to the blessing by the Eternal, your God, which He gave you. If he is poor and stingy, on this one it was said, not less than two silver coins136In this interpretation, the Mishnah is read to explain moral, not prescribed, behavior. However it also is possible to read the text differently: “If he is poor with a large family, I am reading for him, each man according to his means, rich but with a small family, I am reading for him, corresponding to the blessing by the Eternal, your God, which He gave you. If he is poor with a small family, on this one it was said, no less than two silver coins.” In this version the Mishnah is prescriptive. The poor person has to provide meat for his entire family but it may be done as cheaply as possible, subject to the lower limit of 2 oboloi. The rich man who has no use for many well-being offerings has to bring many elevation offerings.. “Each man”, to exclude the minor137Even though the minor is obligated to appear in the Temple, Deut. 16:17 does not apply to him.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if he said, it is on me to bring a festival offering worth five tetradrachmas, but he brought for two; did he fulfill his obligation or is he already fixed138The festival offering is an obligation whose minimal value is set at ⅓ of a denar, 1/12 of a tetradrachma. If he made a vow for a voluntary offering, it would be clear that the vow is fulfilled only if all its terms are fulfilled. The question is whether the private stipulation overrides the general rule. Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If somebody said, it is on me to bring a reparation sacrifice for five tetradrachmas139Nobody can make a vow for a reparation offering if he is not obligated to bring one. By biblical decree the value of the offering is 2 tetradrachmas (Lev. 5:15). Nevertheless, if he vows to increase the value, his sacrifice is accepted by the Temple only if he spends at least 5 tetradrachmas. This shows that even for obligatory sacrifices a prior vow raises the biblical or rabbinic minimum to the level of the vow., is he not fixed? And here he is fixed.
MISHNAH: Someone who did not bring his holiday sacrifice on the first day of the holiday may bring it during the entire festival including the last day of the festival140Even though the last day is a full holiday with all the restrictions imposed on such a day; the only day not suitable for the holiday sacrifice is the Sabbath.. Once the festival has passed he is not liable for its warranty141While in general the Temple has the power to force people to perform the sacrifices due, this does not extend to the holiday sacrifice even though it becomes a fixed obligation with the votary’s entry into the Temple domain. The neglect of the duty cannot be made up by a later sacrifice. On Pentecost which is one day only the festival sacrifice may also be brought during the six days following.. On that it was said142Eccl. 1:15., the distorted cannot be repaired and the deficient cannot be made whole. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth regarding Passover and it is said fifteenth regarding Tabernacles143It is mentioned several times in the Pentateuch that the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, rabbinically called Peṣah, and the festival of booths both start on the 15th of their respective months. Since the particular source is not identified, the argument is informal and not binding as “equal cut”.. Since for the fifteenth which was said regarding Passover the last day is a make-up for the first144Since the Seventh Day of Passover has the same public sacrifices as the first., also for the fifteenth which was said regarding Tabernacles the last day is a make-up for the first. Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days145Lev. 23:41.. Are they seven? Are they not eight146While it is noted in Lev. 23:36 that the seven days of Tabernacles are immediately followed by a separate holiday on the eighth day, in Num. 29:35 the holiday appears as the Eighth Day of Tabernacles. This Eighth Day therefore has a double role, as last day of Tabernacles and as separate festival.? But remove Sabbath from them, there remain seven. Rebbi Yose said, do we infer from here that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside? Was it not from another place147Since the holiday offerings are private sacrifices they automatically are excluded on the Sabbath.? Rebbi Joḥanan the brother of Rav Safra objected, was it not stated, the same holds for Passover? Then remove Sabbath from them, there remain six148The argument of R. Hoshaia cannot be correct.. Think of it, if the first and the last holiday fall on the Sabbath, then remove two days from them and there remain six! There came Rebbi Ḥanania149He shows that the previous discussion was based on a faulty version of R. Hoshaia’s argument., Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, since we already infer that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside; why does the verse say, bring on it a holiday sacrifice150This is a misquote of Ex. 12:14 for the last word in Lev. 23:41, תָּחֹ֥גּוּ אֹתֽוֹ; bring it as holiday sacrifice. Since the sacrifice is mentioned in the singular it is shown that there is a single required sacrifice for the eight-day festival of which up to seven are days of sacrifice. Sifra Emor Pereq 17.? But it teaches that the last day of the festival is make-up for the first. 151This is copied from Sukkah 5:7, Notes 131–135*. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated so that the eighth day was a separate holiday, a separate lottery, a separate benediction, a separate sacrifice152Tosephta Sukkah 4:17.. Holiday, as Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, for all of them is written and on day, but here is written on day, to teach you that it is a separate holiday153In the list of sacrifices for days 2–7 of Tabernacles the first words always are and on day, Num. 29:17,20,23,26,29,32, but the listing for the eighth day starts on the eighth day without connective (Num. 29:35).. Lottery, Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this, “on the eighth day they returned to the lottery as on holidays.” Benediction, Rebbi La said, time154“Who let us live, and supported us, and let us reach this time.”. Sacrifice, one bull and one ram155In particular, religious obligations of a personal nature, which cannot be delegated, have precedence over study. Babli Moed Qatan 9b..
MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says, who is distorted cannot be repaired? This is one committing incest or adultery and producing a bastard. If you would say a thief or robber, that one may repent and repair. Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia136In this interpretation, the Mishnah is read to explain moral, not prescribed, behavior. However it also is possible to read the text differently: “If he is poor with a large family, I am reading for him, each man according to his means, rich but with a small family, I am reading for him, corresponding to the blessing by the Eternal, your God, which He gave you. If he is poor with a small family, on this one it was said, no less than two silver coins.” In this version the Mishnah is prescriptive. The poor person has to provide meat for his entire family but it may be done as cheaply as possible, subject to the lower limit of 2 oboloi. The rich man who has no use for many well-being offerings has to bring many elevation offerings. says, one calls distorted only what was correct before and became distorted. Who is that? This is a scholar who separated from the Torah. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: When you see towns in the Land of Israel uprooted from their place, know that they did not contribute to the wages of Bible and Mishnah teachers137Even though the minor is obligated to appear in the Temple, Deut. 16:17 does not apply to him.. What is the reason? Why is the land ruined, torn down like an uninhabited wilderness? The Eternal said, because they abandoned My Torah138The festival offering is an obligation whose minimal value is set at ⅓ of a denar, 1/12 of a tetradrachma. If he made a vow for a voluntary offering, it would be clear that the vow is fulfilled only if all its terms are fulfilled. The question is whether the private stipulation overrides the general rule.. Rebbi Judah the Prince139Nobody can make a vow for a reparation offering if he is not obligated to bring one. By biblical decree the value of the offering is 2 tetradrachmas (Lev. 5:15). Nevertheless, if he vows to increase the value, his sacrifice is accepted by the Temple only if he spends at least 5 tetradrachmas. This shows that even for obligatory sacrifices a prior vow raises the biblical or rabbinic minimum to the level of the vow. sent Rebbi Ḥiyya140Even though the last day is a full holiday with all the restrictions imposed on such a day; the only day not suitable for the holiday sacrifice is the Sabbath., Rebbi Assi141While in general the Temple has the power to force people to perform the sacrifices due, this does not extend to the holiday sacrifice even though it becomes a fixed obligation with the votary’s entry into the Temple domain. The neglect of the duty cannot be made up by a later sacrifice. On Pentecost which is one day only the festival sacrifice may also be brought during the six days following., and Rebbi Immi to tour the towns of the Land of Israel in order to give them Bible and Mishnah teachers. They came to one place where they found neither Bible nor Mishnah teacher. They said to them, bring us the watchmen of the town. They brought them the stewards142Eccl. 1:15. of the town. They told them, these are not the watchmen of the town, they are the destroyers of the town143It is mentioned several times in the Pentateuch that the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, rabbinically called Peṣah, and the festival of booths both start on the 15th of their respective months. Since the particular source is not identified, the argument is informal and not binding as “equal cut”.. They asked them, and who would be the watchmen of the town? They told them, the Bible and Mishnah teachers. That is what is written, if the Eternal would not build the house144Since the Seventh Day of Passover has the same public sacrifices as the first., etc. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: We find that the Holy One, praise to Him, did forego145Lev. 23:41. for Israel about idol worship, incest and adultery, and bloodshed146While it is noted in Lev. 23:36 that the seven days of Tabernacles are immediately followed by a separate holiday on the eighth day, in Num. 29:35 the holiday appears as the Eighth Day of Tabernacles. This Eighth Day therefore has a double role, as last day of Tabernacles and as separate festival.. But for their rejection of the Torah he did not forego. What is the reason? It is not written here “The Eternal said, because they committed idol worship, incest and adultery, and bloodshed,” but the Eternal said, because they abandoned My Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, that they abandoned Me I could forego, maybe they would keep My Torah147Since the holiday offerings are private sacrifices they automatically are excluded on the Sabbath., since if they abandoned Me but kept My Torah, the leavening in it would bring them close to Me. Rav Ḥuna said, study Torah even not for its own merit, since through {studying} not for its own merit you come to {study} for its own148The argument of R. Hoshaia cannot be correct.. 149He shows that the previous discussion was based on a faulty version of R. Hoshaia’s argument. When Rebbi Jehudah saw a funeral procession or the acclamation of a bride he looked at the students and said, deed precedes study. 150This is a misquote of Ex. 12:14 for the last word in Lev. 23:41, תָּחֹ֥גּוּ אֹתֽוֹ; bring it as holiday sacrifice. Since the sacrifice is mentioned in the singular it is shown that there is a single required sacrifice for the eight-day festival of which up to seven are days of sacrifice. Sifra Emor Pereq 17. They voted in the upper floor of the house of Arius that study precedes action151This is copied from Sukkah 5:7, Notes 131–135*.. Rebbi Abbahu dwelt in Caesarea. He sent his son Rebbi Ḥanina to acquire merit in Tiberias. They sent and said to him, he does works of charity152Tosephta Sukkah 4:17.. He wrote to him, are there no graves in Caesarea153In the list of sacrifices for days 2–7 of Tabernacles the first words always are and on day, Num. 29:17,20,23,26,29,32, but the listing for the eighth day starts on the eighth day without connective (Num. 29:35). that I sent you to Tiberias? For they already voted in the upper floor of the house of Arius in Lydda that study precedes action154“Who let us live, and supported us, and let us reach this time.”. The rabbis of Caesaria say, that is, if there is somebody there who will do it. But if nobody is there who will do it, the action has precedence155In particular, religious obligations of a personal nature, which cannot be delegated, have precedence over study. Babli Moed Qatan 9b.. Example. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi, were late in coming to Rebbi Eleazar. He asked them, where have you been? They told him, performing an act of charity. He asked them, where there no others? They answered him, it was a neighbor156It was an obligation irrespective of the number of attendees at the funeral..
MISHNAH: The dissolution of vows157The power of a rabbi to annul the vow of a person is based on the questionable interpretation, rejected by Sadducees and Karaites, of a single verse. flies in the air and has no support. The rules of the Sabbath, holiday sacrifices, and larceny on sancta158As mentioned in Lev. 5:14–15. The exact definition of what constitutes larceny on sancta is not found in the Biblical text. are like mountains hanging on a hair, few verses and many rules. Civil law, Temple service, purity and impurity, and forbidden sexual relations have support. All of them159This text essentially appears in the Venice edition of the Yerushalmi in Nedarim 3:1 as an unjustified corrector’s addition taken from here. Also the attribution there of R. Eliezer’s statement to Ḥananiah the nephew of R. Joshua is unjustified; Ḥananiah refers to the next paragraph. The authorship of R. Eliezer of a similar statement is confirmed in the Babli 10a. are the body of the Torah. HALAKHAH: 159This text essentially appears in the Venice edition of the Yerushalmi in Nedarim 3:1 as an unjustified corrector’s addition taken from here. Also the attribution there of R. Eliezer’s statement to Ḥananiah the nephew of R. Joshua is unjustified; Ḥananiah refers to the next paragraph. The authorship of R. Eliezer of a similar statement is confirmed in the Babli 10a. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer says, they have support. I swore and shall keep it160Ps. 119:106.. Sometimes I do not keep it. Rebbi Joshua says, they have support. Which I swore in My anger161Ps. 95:11.. I swore in My anger, I am changing My opinion. 162Text copied from Nedarim 3:1, Notes 6–7. There, we have stated163Mishnah Nedarim 3:1.: “Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve.” Do not the Sages permit all kinds of vows? It is written164Num. 30:2.: Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the Children of Israel. He referred the paragraph to the heads of the tribes that they should dissolve their vows. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: He shall not profane his word165Num. 30:3.. He cannot profane his word; this implies that others can profane his words. Who is that? That is the Sage who dissolves the vow. 166This and the following paragraphs are copied from Nedarim 10:10 (Notes 112–128). The first paragraph is complete here and slightly defective there; the end of the second paragraph here is lacunary in the ms. and badly augmented by the corrector. The last paragraph is added from there without any reasonable connection to the topics of Ḥagigah. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Jehudah, Jeremiah bar Abba in the name of Samuel: Three who know how to find an opening167They know the rules of invalidating vows In the Babli, Nedarim 78a, Bekhorot 36b, any three lay persons are empowered to form a court to invalidate vows. may permit like an Elder. They thought, at a place where no Elder was available. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying: Even at a place where there is an Elder168Invalidation of a vow by three laymen is not infringing on the privileges of the rabbinate. The ordained rabbi has the privilege to invalidate a vow alone (Babli, Nedarim 78a).. They said before Rebbi Yasa: Is Rav Ḥuna “head of tribes”169He was the undisputed head of the Babylonian rabbinate and was of the family of the davidic Head of the Diaspora. He certainly had the right to invalidate vows, being of the “heads of the tribes”.? He answered them, if Rav Ḥuna is not head of tribes, who are the heads of tribes? Rav Ḥuna is head of the heads of tribes170He is the head of all ordained rabbis, even though his Babylonian ordination is not complete as explained in the next paragraph.. May one appoint Elders for selected topics171Is it possible to give ordination without conferring all rabbinical powers on the candidate?? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi appointed Rav to invalidate vows and to see stains172To decide whether a female genital discharge was menstrual blood or not; i. e., whether the woman would be permitted to her husband or not. This is taken as example of his power to decide in matters of ritual prohibitions and includes permission to judge in all matters of such prohibitions.. After his death, he173Rav. asked his174Rebbi’s. son for {permission to judge} defects of firstlings. He said to him, I shall not add to what my father gave you. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he gave him everything: To sit in judgment alone, to invalidate vows, to see stains, and to see outside blemishes175Blemishes of firstlings. In the tradition of the Babli, Sanhedrin5a, Rav received full rabbinic powers except the right to decide anything in matters of firstlings. (A firstling of cattle, sheep, or goats must be sacrificed unless it has a blemish which disqualifies it as a sacrifice. In the absence of a Temple, the firstling must graze until it develops a blemish; Deut. 15:19–23.) The full ordination was refused to him since his intent was to return to Babylonia and Rebbi disapproved of that. After him, all rabbis with the limited diaspora ordination received the title of Rav.. After his death, he asked his son for {permission to judge} hidden defects. He said to him, I shall not add to what my father gave you. Even though you say, one appoints Elders for selected topics, only if he is competent for everything. As the following: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi ordained all his students, but he was sorry about one who (had a defect in his) [had a running] eye176Since skin lesions (wrongly translated as “leprosy”, Lev. 13–14) must be seen with both eyes, a one-eyed or blind person could not be ordained to decide on their ritual purity. {The meaning of the corrector’s change is questionable.} and he could not ordain him; could he not have ordained him for selected topics? That implies (that one who is competent in one thing has to be competent in everything, even for one thing he is not competent) [one who is competent in everything is competent in one thing but one who is not competent in everything cannot be declared competent in one thing.]177The scribe’s text is lacunary, the corrector’s wrong. One has to adopt the text from Nedarim: In order to be competent in one thing he has to be competent in everything; one who is not competent in everything cannot be declared competent in one thing. May one appoint Elders for a fixed time? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Rebbi Eleazar and asked him to intervene with the Patriarch Rebbi Jehudah, that the latter should write him a letter of recommendation for seeking a livelihood in a foreign country. He intervened, and {the Patriarch} wrote for him: Here we are sending you as our representative a great personality with all our powers until he shall return to us. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Dositheus, Rebbi Abba bar Zamina, and they report in the name of the old Rebbi Dositheus: He wrote him the following. Here we are sending you a great personality. What is his greatness? He will not be ashamed to say “I did not learn this”178In the first version the ordination was valid only as long as R. Ḥiyya served outside the Land of Israel. In the second, it was unconditional. The question is not resolved.. May one permit wearing a coat179May a vow be removed informally or only in a court proceeding with the rabbi sitting as judge? “Robe” is Latin paenula, Greek φαινόλης, παινόλης.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One permits wearing a coat. Rebbi permitted wearing a coat. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi permitted wearing a coat. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: At a place where one does not wear a toga. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, for easy vows180Those which can be permitted unquestionably, for which no argument is needed.. “The rules of the Sabbath.” Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba asked, is it not written only but a spring, or a cystern, a water pool shall be pure181Lev. 11:36., and you infer from this many rules182He objects to the distinction made between the rules of the Sabbath and those of purity. While there are many more verses dealing with purity than those dealing with the Sabbath, there are many rules of purity derived from as slim a scriptural basis than those of the Sabbath. Cf. Sifra Shemini Parashah 9.. 183From here to the last paragraph of the Chapter the text is Halakhah Peah 2:6, Notes 98–120 (פ). This first paragraph is intelligible only in the framework of Tractate Peah. Rebbi Ze`ira said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you come to notice a practice of which you do not know the reason, do not push it aside as something alien since many practices were said as from Moses on Sinai184In the Peah text, including Mishnah 2:6: to Moses on Sinai. The formulation here only asserts that these practices were accepted as traditional and valid interpretations of the Law by the time of Ezra’s organization of Judaism. and all of them were absorbed into the Mishnah. Rebbi Abun said, that is correct! If Naḥum had not come and explained it to us about the two kinds of wheat, could we have known185Referring to Mishnah Peah 2:6 where Naḥum the Scribe asserts a tradition from Moses on Sinai that a farmer harvesting two different strains of wheat has to give only one peah.? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: I wrote down for him most of My teaching186Hos. 8:12.. But was most of the Torah written down? Rather, more things are derived from what is written than what is derived from oral tradition. Is that so? But things derived from what is supported by a verse are preferred over those supported by oral tradition. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said: I wrote down for him most of My teaching, these are the admonitions. Nevertheless, is it not that they were considered foreign? Rebbi Abun said: If I had written down for you most of my teaching, would it not be considered Gentile187Since only Jews have oral tradition as main source of a codified system of laws.? What would be the difference between us and the Gentiles? These produce their books and those produce their books. These produce their parchments188Greek διφθέρα. and those produce their parchments. 189This paragraph also is from Megillah4:1, Notes 16 ff. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Things have been said orally and things have been said in writing, and we do not know which ones are preferred. From what is written190Ex. 34:27.: by the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel, it follows that the oral traditions are preferred. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Simeon. One said that if you kept what is oral tradition and kept what is written I will conclude a covenant with you, otherwise I shall not conclude a covenant with you. The other one said, if you watched all that is oral tradition and kept all that is written you will receive your reward, otherwise you will not receive any reward. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: On them, and on them; all, like all; words, the words; Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, practices and Aggadah. Even what a competent student will discover before his teacher was said to Moses on Sinai. What is the reason? There is something about which one would say, look, this is new! His colleague will answer, it already has been forever191Eccl. 1:10.. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: One makes inferences neither from practices192Rules of practice declared in the Mishnah; these may be overridden by arguments in the Talmud. The interpretation of this paragraph follows R. Samuel ben Meïr (Rashbam) to Babli Bava batra 130b., nor from homiletics193Homiletics, whether incorporated in the Talmud or given in separate Midrashim. Since the sixteenth century this principle has been violated in favor of practices mentioned in the pseudepigraphic Midrash Zohar., nor from extraneous sources194The “additional sources” are tannaitic materials not given in the Mishnah, either as single traditions or as part of a collection., but only from study195From study which finds the reasons for each ruling.. Did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state: The case of two kinds of wheat is the same as the case of two kinds of barley196If R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul makes the inference that the rules for barley are identical with those for wheat, does he not violate Samuel's statement that one does not draw inferences from stated practices but only from an argument about the underlying principles?? Rebbi Ze`ira said, that was part of the original practice and it was forgotten: The case of two kinds of wheat is the same as the case of two kinds of barley. But did we not state197Mishnah Peah 3:3. “He who strips moist onions for the market and stores dry ones198He has to give peah two times; this rule cannot be deduced from the stated practice regarding two kinds of wheat since one deals here with only one kind of onion. Since this Mishnah cannot be a consequence of the original Halakhah, neither may one assert that the ruling of R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul was part of the original Ḥalakhah. Hence, neither the statement of R. Ḥalaphta nor the Mishnah are exempt from logical scrutiny on the basis of accepted general principles.;” can you say about market and storage that this was of the original practice and was forgotten? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Samuel: One makes no inferences from a ruling199If a rabbi was asked about a practical problem and he gave a certain decision, a third party may make no practical applications of that decision unless he understands the reasoning behind the decision and agrees with it.. Everybody agrees that one makes no inferences from an action200If one saw a rabbinic authority act in a certain way, one may not act in the same way or make inferences from this action unless one knows both the background of and the reasoning for the particular action.. Rebbi Mana said to him, that means somebody who does not understand201The reasoning of the rabbinic authority., but he who understands may act. He said to him, whether one understands or one does not understand, if there is a disagreement202If in the Mishnah or another source there is mention of a disagreement between rabbis about the correct course, action is permitted only if there is an explicit understanding of and agreement with the reasoning behind the ruling.. But if there is no disagreement, whether one understands or one does not understand one acts203In this case, one may act on the decision or imitate the action of a competent rabbinic authority even without a detailed inquiry into the arguments leading to decision or action.Here ends the text from Peah.. 204This paragraph is copied (somewhat lacunary, completed by the corrector) in Terumot 5:9 (Notes 112–115). Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All forbidden things205Which can become insignificant in an appropriate plurality of permitted food (60, 100, 200 times, as the case may be)., if one added to them in error it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden. Is that not the Mishnah206Mishnah Terumot 5:9., “if it was in error it is permitted, if intentional it is forbidden”? The Mishnah is about addition to heave, he comes to tell you about other things. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as one has a duty to instruct about actions that should be done so one has a duty to instruct negatively about actions that should not be done. Rebbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure as pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure as impure. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to suspend or to burn207The rule is that heave impure by biblical standards must be burned but heave impure only by rabbinic standards must be “suspended”, viz., one must leave it to rot until it is no longer food and, therefore, pure according to all standards., always try to burn rather than to suspend since there is nothing in the Torah more distinguished than burned bulls and burned rams208The expiatory sacrifices whose blood was brought into the Sanctuary., and they are burned. Rebbi Yose asked, is it possible to infer from something whose commandment is thus for something whose commandment is not so209The argument of R. Abba bar Jacob contradicts our principle that homiletics cannot be the base of practical decisions.?
MISHNAH: One does not explain sexual aberrations to three {persons}, nor the Creation1To study the esoteric doctrines inspired by the biblical account of Creation which obviously is not a scientific text. to two, nor the Chariot2The details of the Divine Throne as described in the first Chapter of Ezechiel. to one unless he was wise and understood by himself. Anybody trying to investigate four things it would have been better for him not to have come into the world: what is above and what is below, what is before and what is after3Since space and time are created, there cannot be any meaningful answer to the question what was before time and what is outside space.. And anybody not caring for the glory of his Creator4The hypocrite who sins in secret is blaspheming every time he sins since he shows that he denies that God is all-knowing. would have been better off not to come into the world5Not being born he could not be punished.. HALAKHAH: “One does not explain sexual aberrations to three {persons},” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, but following Rebbi Ismael6If there can be no public discussion about the rules concerning sexual aberrations, there can be no disagreement about these rules. This is acceptable following R. Aqiba who derives prohibition for both the active and the passive homosexual from Lev. 18:22, noting that the unvocalized verb can be read both in active and in passive voices (cf Sanhedrin 7:9, Note 176.) But R. Ismael who denies that Lev. 18:22 contains a prohibition of passive homosexuality does derive the prohibition from an intricate derivation involving verses which on the face of it do not describe deadly sins. Therefore he must invite public discussion of his position. The Babli 11b considers the Mishnah as a moral precept, not an enforceable ruling.? Since Rebbi Ismael states warnings to the actors7Sanhedrin 7:9, Notes 177–181; Babli Sanhedrin 54b.. Since Rebbi Immi was sitting and stating a warning for active homosexual and a warning for the passive homosexual, this implies that practice follows Rebbi Ismael8The Amora was openly teaching R. Ismael’s opinion as authoritative; the first clause in Mishnah 1 is not accepted.. “Nor the Creation to two.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, but following Rebbi Ismael one investigates what happened. Since Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi was sitting and explaining that originally the world was water in water; this implies that practice follows Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi was preaching9The original meaning of דרש “to investigate” has been changed into the later Amoraic-Medieval “to preach” and the interpretation of the Mishnah changed accordingly.: Originally the world was water in water. What is the reason? God’s wind was hovering over the water10Gen. 1:2.. Then He turned it into snow, He throws his ice like small breads11Ps. 147:17.. Then He turned it into land, for He will tell the snow, be land12Job 37:6.. And the land stands on water, to Him Who spreads the earth over the water13Ps. 136:6. Babli 12b.. And the water stands on mountains, on mountains shall the water stand14Ps. 104:6.. And the mountains stand on wind, behold the Maker of mountains and Creator of wind15Am. 4:13.. And the wind depends on storm, the wind storm executes His word16Ps. 148:3. And the Holy One, praise to Him, turned storm into a kind of amulet and hung it on His arm, as it is said, and below eternal arms17Deut. 33:27.. Behold the Maker of mountains and Creator of wind, etc. This is one of six verses which Rebbi was reading and crying18Attributed to other authors in the Babli, 4b. For the next three verses, the problem is that by their text reward for exemplary behavior is not guaranteed.. Implore the Eternal, all the meek of the Land19Soph. 2:3., etc. Hate evil and love goodness,20Am. 5:15. etc. He shall put dust in his mouth21Thr. 3:29., etc. For all deeds22Eccl. 12:14., etc. Samuel said to Saul, why did you irritate me231Sam. 28:15., etc. He said to him, you should not have angered your Creator by me. You made me your idol. Do you not know that just as the worshipper is punished, the worshipped is punished? Not only this but I was thinking that this was the Day of Judgment and I was afraid. And is that not an inference de minore ad majus, if Samuel, the teacher of the Prophets, about whom it is written, all of Israel knew, from Dan to Beer Sheva241Sam. 3:20., etc., was afraid of the Day of Judgment, so we so much more? And this behold the Maker of mountains and Creator of wind, even matters which are not sinful are written for everybody25Babli 5b. on his writing tablet26Greek πίναξ.. And who tells to a person? The breath of his mouth. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Jabes. The Maker of mountains and Creator of wind. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Jabes, those Sepphoreans, “chaos” is darkness and murkiness27The last two sentences which probably are corrupt seem to explain the word “chaos” in Gen. 1:2.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah: Hadrian asked Akylas the proselyte28Who according to tradition was a relative of the later Emperor Hadrian. As translator he is dated almost a generation earlier (Megillah 1:11, Note 299)., is it true that you are saying that this world rest on the spirit? He told him, yes. He said to him, how can you show this to me? He told him, bring me noble camels. He brought him noble camels. He loaded them with their loads, let them stand up and lie down, lifted them and strangulated them. He told him, here they are, raise them. He said to him, after you strangulated them? He told him, I did not remove anything from them, is it not the spirit which left them? “Nor the Chariot2The details of the Divine Throne as described in the first Chapter of Ezechiel. to one.” Is this still Rebbi Aqiba’s? It is the opinion of everybody, so that a person know how to take care of the glory of his Maker. Did not Rav say, nobody is permitted to pronounce anything (about skin disease) [against his teacher]29The corrector’s [text] arose from a misunderstanding of the argument and has to be deleted. The scribe’s (text) is based on the observation that the rules of impurity of skin disease are given an important place in Lev. 13–14, but already at the time of the Mishnah were not identifiable as specific illnesses. While it is important to be acquainted with the interpretation of two full Chapters in the Torah, this must be restricted to memorizing the traditional interpretations. A person is empowered to add his own statement only if he was confronted with an actual case. The same holds with the Heavenly Chariot. Unless he had his own vision, the reality behind Ezechiel’s verses remains closed to him, and any statement which adds to study material is presumptuous assertion of false, since unknowable, statements. unless either he saw or he served. How does one proceed? At the start his teacher indicates the topics of the verses and summarizes30The traditional interpretation of the verses.. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi had a competent student who explained one Chapter in the Work of the Chariot to which Rebbi did not concur; he was stricken with scabies. This teaching may be compared to two roads, one of fire and the other of snow. If he takes one he dies in fire, if he takes the other he dies in snow. What should he do? Walk in the middle31Learn the traditional interpretation and refrain from adding to it.. 32Babli 14b; Tosephta 2:1. It happened that Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai was on the road, riding on a donkey, and Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh was walking behind him. He said to him, my teacher, instruct me in a Chapter about the Work of the Chariot. He told him, did the Sagen not state, “nor the Chariot2The details of the Divine Throne as described in the first Chapter of Ezechiel. unless he was wise and understood by himself.” He said to him, my teacher, permit me to say it before you. He told him, say. When Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh started about the Work of the Chariot, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai descended from the donkey. He said, it is not appropriate that I should hear about the glory of my Creator riding on a donkey. They went and sat under a tree, when fire descended from Heaven and surrounded them, and the angels of Service were dancing before them like wedding guests happy with the bridegroom. An angel addressed from inside the fire and said, the Work of the Chariot is as you said, Eleazar ben Arakh. Then all trees (around them) [opened their mouths] and sang; then all trees of the forest will sing33Ps. 96:12.. When Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh finished with the Work of the Chariot, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai rose, kissed him on his head, and said: Praised be the Eternal, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who gave a wise son to our father Abraham who knows to speak of the Glory of our Father in Heaven. They are good speakers who do not act well, those who act well but are no good speakers. Eleazar ben Arakh speaks well and acts well. Hail to you, our father Abraham, that Eleazar ben Arakh came from your loins. When Rebbi Yosef Hakohen and Rebbi Simeon ben Nethanael34Cf. Mishnah Avot 2:8. heard, they also started with the Work of the Chariot. They said, it was one day after the summer solstice; the earth trembled and the Arc appeared in the cloud. An unembodied voice came and said to them, the place is free and the triclinium prepared for you. You and your students are invited to the third group. This parallels him who said, seven enjoyments are before Your presence35Ps. 16:11., there are seven groups of just people in the Future World36Who are worthy to see God’s glory, Lev. rabba 30(2).. 37Babli 15a. It also happened that Rebbi Joshua was on the road when Ben Zoma came towards him. He greeted him but he did not answer. He asked him, from where and whence, Ben Zoma? He told him, I was observing the Creation, and the distance between the upper waters and the lower waters is (one) [a full]38The corrector’s text certainly is erroneous. It uses Babli general language but contradicts the Babli here. While the Talmudim recognize units of measurement smaller than the hand-breadth, e. g., finger-widths, unless numbers are given “a hand-breadth” means a small distance of indeterminate size. opening of a hand-breadth. It says here “hovering”, and it says there, as an eagle watches his nest, over his chicks he hovers39Deut. 32:11.. Since in case of the hovering mentioned there it means barely touching, so the hovering mentioned here means barely touching. Rebbi Joshua said to his students, Ben Zoma is out. It was only a few days that Ben Zoma passed away. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah: Three lectured their teachings41About the Work of the Chariot. in front of their teachers: Rebbi Joshua in front of Rabban Joḥana ben Zakkai, Rebbi Aqiba in front of Rebbi Joshua, Ḥananiah ben Ḥakhinai in front of Rebbi Aqiba. From there on their mind was not pure42Studies of Ez. 1 were no longer tolerated.. Four entered the Garden43Gnostic interpretations., One peeked and was hurt; one peeked and died; one peeked and cut saplings, one entered in peace and left in peace. Ben Azzai peeked and was hurt; about him the verse says44Prov. 25:16. The implication is that eating more than his fill is dangerous., if you found honey, eat your fill. Ben Zoma peeked and died, about him the verse says45Ps. 116:15., dear in the Eternal’s eyes is the death of his pious. Aḥer peeked and cut saplings. Who is Aḥer? Elisha ben Abuya, who killed the children of Torah. They said, if he saw a student excelling in Torah he killed him. Not only this, but he went to the school house and saw children in front of their Bible teacher. He said, what are these sitting doing here? The profession of this one is builder, the profession of this one is carpenter, the profession of this one is hunter, the profession of this one is tailor. When they heard this, they left him46The teacher. and went away. About him the verse says47Eccl. 5:5., do not let your mouth make your flesh sin48This quote seems to support Y. Kutscher’s suggestion that “Aḥer” does not mean “the other” but “the one in heat”, since “flesh” describes the male organ., etc.; for he destroyed the deeds of himself. Also in the time of religious persecution they49The Romans, during the Hadrianic persecutions. made them50The Jews. carry loads. They50The Jews. intended that two together should carry one load, because of two persons who performed one work51It is implied that the Jews were forced to carry on the Sabbath. Two people carrying one load do not break a biblical prohibition. Cf. Šabbat Chapter 1, Note 105.. He52Elisha ben Abuya. said, make them carry singly. They49The Romans, during the Hadrianic persecutions. went and made them carry singly. They50The Jews. intended to unload in karmelit, in order not to carry from a private to a public domain53To avoid breaking a biblical prohibition, Šabbat Chapter 1, Note 73.. He52Elisha ben Abuya. said to them49The Romans, during the Hadrianic persecutions., let them carry flasks; they made them carry flasks54To be transported from one private domain to another through public domain, a biblical infraction.. Rebbi Aqiba entered in peace and left in peace; about him the verse says55Cant. 1:4. Babli 15b., draw me, I shall run after you, etc. 56The legend of Aḥer is also found in Ruth rabba 6(6), Eccl. rabba 7(18); partially Babli 15a/b. Note that Aḥer’s birth is dated both to Jerusalem before the first war against the Roman as also to the ascendancy of RR. Eliezer and Joshua after the death of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai about 80CE. His apostasy is dated to the Hadrianic persecutions after 130, and his unmarried daughters appear before Rebbi not before 180. Rebbi Meïr was sitting and preaching in the House of Study of Tiberias when his teacher Elisha passed by riding on a horse on the Sabbath. They came and told him, your teacher is outside. He stopped his sermon and went out to him. He asked him, what did you preach today? He told him, and the Eternal blessed the end57Job 42:12. etc. He asked him, what did you explain about this? He answered him, and the Eternal added double all that Job had owned58Job 42:10.; that he doubled his money. He said, woe for those who are lost and not found, your teacher Aqiba did not preach this but, the Eternal blessed the end of Job from his beginning, by the merit of commandments and good works which were in his hand from his beginning. He asked him, and what did you preach further? He told him, the end of a matter is better than the beginning59Eccl. 7:8.. He asked him, what did you explain about this? For example, a man who had children in his youth but they died, and in his old age they lived; that is the end of a matter is better than the beginning. For example, a man who traded in his youth and lost, and in his old age and gained; that is the end of a matter is better than the beginning. For example, a man who studied Torah in his youth and forgot, in his old age he remembered; that is the end of a matter is better than the beginning. He said, woe for those who are lost and not found, your teacher Aqiba did not preach this but, the end of a matter is good from the beginning, in case it is good from the start, and this applies to me. My father Abuya was one of the leading Jerusalemites. On the day he came to circumcise me he invited all the leading Jerusalemites and sat them in one room, and Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in another room60Cf. Note 56.. After they ate and drank they started to clap with their hands and dance. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua said, while they are occupied in theirs let us be occupied with ours. They sat occupied with words of the Torah, from the Torah to Prophets, from Prophets to Hagiographs. Fire descended from Heaven and surrounded them. Abuya told them, my teachers! Why do you come to burn down my house? They told him, Heaven forbid! But we were sitting reviewing the words of the Torah, from the Torah to Prophets, from Prophets to Hagiographs, and the words were joyful as at their giving on Sinai. And was the main giving on Sinai not in fire? And the Mountain burns in the fire up to the heart of Heaven61Deut. 4:11.. My father Abuya told them, my teachers! If that is the power of Torah, if this son of mine survives I dedicate him to Torah. Because his intent was not for Heaven, it did not succeed with this man. He asked him, and what did you preach further? He told him, it cannot be valued by gold or glass62Job 28:17.. He asked him, what did you explain about this? He told him, the words of the Torah are as difficult to acquire as golden vessels, and as easy to lose as glass vessels. And like golden and glass vessels when they are broken he can make them vessels as before, also the student of the Sages who forgot his learning can learn it anew. He said to him, this is enough, Meïr, up to here is the Sabbath domain. He asked him, how do you know? He told him, from the horse’s hooves which I continuously counted for 2’000 cubits. He said to him, all that wisdom is in you and you do not repent? He told him, I cannot. He asked him, why? He told him, once I was passing by the Holiest of Holies riding on a horse on the Day of Atonement which fell on a Sabbath and I heard an unembodied voice coming from the Holiest of Holies, saying, return, erring children63Jer. 3:14,22., except for Elisha ben Abuya who knew My power and rebelled against Me. And all that came to him because he was sitting memorizing in the valley of Genezareth and saw a man climbing to the top of a date palm taking the mother with the chicks and descending safely. The next day he saw another man climbing to the top of a date palm, taking the chicks and sending away the mother. When climbing down he was bitten by a snake, and he died. He said, it is written64Deut. 22:7., sending away you shall send the mother, but the chicks you may take for yourself, so it will be good for you and prolong your days. Where is the good for this one? Where is the prolongation of days of this one? He did not know that Rebbi Jacob had explained it preceding him65Tosephta Ḥulin 10:16., so it will be good for you in the future world which is all good, and prolong your days, in the future which is all long. But some are saying, because he saw the tongue of Rebbi Jehudah the baker in the mouth of a dog, oozing blood. He said, is this the Torah and this is its reward? This is the tongue which was delivering the words of the Torah correctly; this is the tongue which occupied itself with Torah all its days; [is this the Torah and this is its reward?] It appears that there is no reward and no resurrection of the dead. But some are saying, when his mother was pregnant with him she passed by pagan temples and smelled of this kind. And this smell was bubbling in her body like the poison of a viper. Later Elisha fell sick. They came and informed Rebbi Meïr, your teacher is sick. He went to visit him and found him sick. He asked him, are you not repenting? He asked, and if one repents, is one accepted? He told him, is it not written, man shall repent up to extinction66Ps. 90:3., one receives up to the extinction of the breath. At that moment Elisha cried, passed away, and died. Rebbi Meïr was happy internally and said, it seems that my teacher passed away repentant. After they buried him, fire descended from Heaven and burned his grave. They came and informed Rebbi Meïr, your teacher’s grave is on fire. He went to visit it and found it burning. What did he do? He took his kaftan and spread it over it. He said, stay for the night67Ruth 3:13., etc. Stay for this world which compares to the night, and it will be in the morning, this is the Future World which is all morning, if the Good One will redeem, this is the Holy One, praise to Him, who is Good, as it is written68Ps. 145:9., the Eternal is good to all, and His mercies are on all His creatures. And if He does not want to redeem you I shall redeem you, living is the Eternal67Ruth 3:13., and it was extinguished. They asked Rebbi Meïr, if they ask you in that World, whom do you want to visit, your father or your teacher? He told them, I shall visit my teacher first and afterwards my father. They said, will they listen to you? He told them, did we not state69Mishnah Šabbat 16:2., “one saves the case of a scroll with the scroll, and the case of phylacteries with the phylacteries”? One saves Elisha Aher by the merit of his Torah. Later his daughters went to take charity from Rebbi. Rebbi decided and said, nobody shall show him grace nor be friendly to his orphans70Ps. 109:12.. They told him, Rebbi. Do not look at his deeds, do look at his Torah. At this moment Rebbi cried and decided for them that they be provided for71This usually means to be given a dowry for a decent marriage.. He said, if this one who toiled in Torah not for Heaven’s sake, see what he produced72He raised a good Jewish family.; one who toils in the Torah for itself not so much more? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Siracides: What is beyond you do not have to know, what is deeper than the abyss do not investigate. Ponder what is permitted to you; you have no concern with hidden things73Siracides3:21–22. Babli 13a.. 74For the following, including the next paragraph, cf.Gen. rabba1(7). Rav said, may lying lips be אלם75Ps. 31:19.: may they become dumb, be rubbed out, silenced. May they become dumb, as you are saying, the Eternal said to him, Who formed a mouth76Ex. 4:11, mentioning deafness and dumbness. etc. May they be rubbed out, as you are saying, here we were tying sheaves77Gen. 37:7. Reading the word for “sheaf” as “assembly of single stalks”.. May they be silenced, as it is understood. Which talk boasting about a just one74For the following, including the next paragraph, cf.Gen. rabba1(7)., who talk about the Universal Just One in matters which He hid from His creatures. With haughtiness and contempt75Ps. 31:19., that is he who is haughty to say, I am investigating the Creation. He feels like haughty but only is insulting. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one who aggrandizes himself by the disgrace of another person has no part in the Future World. He who aggrandizes himself by the glory of the Universal Living not so much more? What is written afterwards78Ps. 31:21.? How great is the good which You hid for those who fear You. He may not have part in the great good. Rebbi Levi said, it is written79Prov. 25:2., the glory of God is hiding things, etc. The glory of God is hiding things, before the world was created; the glory of kings is investigating things, after the world was created. Rebbi Levi said, do you know what happened earlier, but you since human was put on the earth80Job 20:4.. Rebbi Jonah [in the name of] Rebbi Abba: It is written81Deut. 4:32., but ask the first days which were before you, I could think before the Creation. The verse says, from the day that God created Man on the Earth. I could think starting with the Sixth Day, the verse says, the first. After the verse added, it subtracted. Therefore we infer from the Sixth. Since the Sixth is particular that it is one of the Six Days of Creation, also you may not bring to me only ones similar to the Sixth. I could think, to know what is higher than heaven and lower than the abyss, the verse says, from end of heaven to end of heaven. But before the world was created you may investigate privately; after the world was created your voice may go from one end of the world to the other end82Meaning that one is permitted to publicly preach about this subject anywhere.. Bar Qappara stated, “and from the day.” It comes that Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi9The original meaning of דרש “to investigate” has been changed into the later Amoraic-Medieval “to preach” and the interpretation of the Mishnah changed accordingly. parallels Bar Qappara, and what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated83Tosephta 2:7, Babli 11b; Gen. rabba1(13). parallels Rebbi Abba. 84Gen. rabba 1(14). Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Levi: The world was created with Bet. Since Bet is closed from all sides but open from one side, you have no right to investigate what is above, what is below, what is before, and what is after, except starting with the day the world was created and onwards. One asks the Bet, who created you? It points out to them its point and says, this One above. And what is His Name? It points out to them its back point and says, the Eternal is His Name85Ex. 15:32., “Master” is His Name. Another explanation. Why by Bet? Because it is an expression of blessing, but not by Alef, which is an expression of accursed. The Holy One, praise to Him, said, I shall only build My world with Bet, so that the creatures should not say, how could the world remain standing if it was created in an expression of accursed. Therefore I shall create it with Bet, and expression of blessing, so it shall have a chance to endure. 86Gen. rabba 12(9). Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Johanan: With two letters two worlds were created, this world and the Future World. [One by He and one by Yud.] What is the reason? For in Yah, the Eternal is the Rock of Worlds87Is. 26:4.. However, we did not know which one was created by He and which one by Yud. But from what is written, these are the outcomes of Heaven and Earth in their being created88Gen. 2:4., He created them by He. This implies that this world was created by He, and the Future World was created by Yud. 89Babli Menaḥot 29b. Since He is (missing) [open] below, it is a hint for all creatures that they will descend to the pit. Since He has a point on top, from the moment they descend they ascend. Since He is open from all sides, so He opens a door to all who repent. Since Yud is curved, so all creatures should be bent. All faces turned yellow90Jer. 30:6.. When David saw this, he started to acclaim by two letters, praise Yah, praise, the servants of the Eternal, praise the Name of the Eternal91Ps. 113:1.. 92Gen. rabba 12(9), 1(7). Babli 16a. Rebbi Yudan the Patriarch asked Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: What means that which is written, Prepare a way for the rider on clouds, His name YH, and jubilate before Him93Ps. 68:5.. He told him, there is no place which does not have one appointed over its life94An otherwise undocumented feminine of Greek m. βίος “life”.. And who is appointed over the lives of all? The Holy One, praise to Him. His name YH, His name: Βια. Rebbi Eleazar told him, your teacher95R. Jonathan. was not explaining in this way, but {a parable} of a king who built a palace on a place of sewers, a place of dung heaps, a place which stinks. One who comes and says, this palace is at a place of sewers, a place of dung heaps, a place which stinks, does he not detract? So he detracts who says, originally the world was water in water9The original meaning of דרש “to investigate” has been changed into the later Amoraic-Medieval “to preach” and the interpretation of the Mishnah changed accordingly.. {A parable} of a king’s orchard and an observation deck built on it, to look at it but not to touch96The orchard is the world, the observation deck is Scripture, which may be enjoyed but may not be used to gain knowledge of the working of the Creation; forbidding Gnosticism.. 97Gen. rabba 1(21), Lev. rabba 36(1), Midrash Samuel 5[1]. The Midrashim seem to be the original source since they apply R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon’s final statement to other pairs of notions. The House of Shammai are saying, heaven was created first and afterwards earth. But the House of Hillel are saying, earth was created first and afterwards heaven. These are bringing proof for their assertion, and those are bringing proof for their assertion. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth98Gen. 1:1.. {A parable} of a king who made a chair. After he had made it he made its footstool99Greek ‘υποπόδιον.: the Heavens are My throne and the Earth My footstool100Is. 66:1.. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? On the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven101Gen. 2:4. {A parable} of a king who made a palace. After he built the foundations he built the upper structure: also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens102Is. 48:13.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, also the following supports the House of Hillel: in earlier times You founded the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of Your hands103Ps. 102:26.. Rebbi Ḥanina said, from the place from where the House of Shammai prove their assertion, from there the House of Hillel remove them. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. From there the House of Hillel remove them: and the earth was104Gen. 1:2., it already was. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of the Sages: As for creation, the heaven preceded. As for perfecting, the earth preceded. As for creation, the heaven preceded, in the Beginning God created. As for perfecting, the earth preceded, on the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven. According to the House of Shammai, the heaven after the First waited three days, First, Second, Third, to have offspring. On the Fourth, there shall be lights105Gen. 1:14.. According to the House of Shammai, the sea after the Second waited three days, Second, Third, Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem106Gen. 1:20.. According to the House of Shammai, the earth after the Third waited three days, Third, Fourth, Fifth, to have offspring. On the Sixth, the earth shall produce107Gen. 1:24.. According to the House of Hillel, the earth after the First waited two days, First and Second, to have offspring. On the Third, the earth shall be covered with grass. According to the House of Hillel, the sea after the Third waited two days, Third and Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. Rebbi Simeon ben Yohai said, I am wondering how the fathers of the world could disagree about the creation of the world. Heaven and earth were only created like a pan108Greek λοπάς. and its cover. What is the reason? Also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens109The argument is from the end of the verse, not quoted: I am calling to them, they shall stand together.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, following this, my father’s opinion, sometimes heaven precedes earth, sometimes earth precedes heaven, which teaches that they are equivalent one to another.
MISHNAH: Yose ben Yoezer The pairs enumerated here were the joint heads of the Pharisaic leadership from Hasmonean to Herodian times, as enumerated in Avot, Chapter 1. says not to lean on. The verse requires that the owner of a well-being sacrifice lean with his hands on the animal before it is slaughtered (Lev. 3:2,7,13), but there is no indication that omission of the ceremony would in any way disqualify the sacrifice. By tradition, the owner has to push down on the animal with all his force. Doing this on a holiday is at least rabbinically forbidden as illegitimate use of an animal. Now it is explained in Eruvin Chapter 10 that most, but not all, rabbinic restrictions on Sabbath and holidays were disregarded in the Temple. The disagreement is whether the prohibition to push down on an animal is observed in the Temple for holiday sacrifices offered on a holiday or not., Yose ben Joḥanan says to lean on. Joshua ben Perahia says not to lean on, Matthew from Arbel says to lean on. Jehudah ben Tabbai says not to lean on, Simeon ben Shetah says to lean on. Shemaiah says to lean on, Avtalion says not to lean on. Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree. Menaḥem left and Shammai entered; Hillel says to lean on, Shammai says not to lean on. The first ones were Patriarchs, the second Presidents of the Court. HALAKHAH: Originally the only disagreement in Israel was about leaning on. Then rose Hillel and Shammai and made it four The disagreement noted here and those reported in Mishnaiot Idiut 1-3.. After the students of the House of Shammai and students of the House of Hillel increased who did not sufficiently serve their teachers, disagreements increased in Israel and they were split into two sects; these declare impure and those declare pure, and the prior state will not be reconstituted until the arrival of David’s son The Messiah. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions shall not be unimportant in your eyes, since leaning on is only a meritorious act and the fathers of the world disagreed about it. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one has to press down with all his weight. If it were not so we would have to say that it is forbidden to touch an animal on the Sabbath. Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree. Menaḥem left and Shammai entered.” Where did he leave to? Some are saying, from behavior he left to behavior In the Babli 16b: He left to bad behavior, which certainly means that he rejected Pharisaic Judaism but leaves unanswered the question whether he became an apostate or an adherent of a competing sect.. But some are saying, he left against his face In the Babli: He left to work for the king (Herod.), he and eighty pairs of students of the Sages, wearing golden tirqe A word of unknown meaning and etymology. In the Babli: silk garments, not appropriate for Pharisaic Sages., whose faces became black like the rim of a pot A clay pot. when they were told, write on a bull’s horn that you have no part in the God of Israel. We have stated: Jehudah ben Ṭabbai was Patriarch, and Simeon ben Shetaḥ President of the Court; there are Tannaim who switch. What happened in Alexandria supports him who said, Jehudah ben Tabbai was Patriarch. [The people of Jerusalem] wanted to appoint him Patriarch in Jerusalem. The people from Jerusalem did write: From the great Jerusalem to the small Alexandria: How long still will my betrothed live in your midst and I am sitting sorrowful about him? He took leave and started on a ship. He said, I remember the lady of the house who received us; what is she missing? One of his students told him, her eye is damaged. He told him, you have sinned twice; first that you suspected me, and second that you looked at her. Did I say that she was beautiful in looks? I only said that about her deeds. He was taking offense and he left He died.. What happened in Ascalon supports him who said, Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ was president. Two pious men were in Ascalon. They ate together, drank together, and studied Torah together. One of them died, and nobody attended his funeral. The son of Ma`yan the publican died; the entire city stopped working to attend his funeral. The other pious man started crying and said woe, do the haters of Israel have no hope? He was shown in a dream that it was said to him, do not denigrate your Master’s children. This one committed one sin and died with it, the other one did one good deed and died with it. What sin did this pious man commit? Far be it that he committed a sin, but once he put on his head phylacteries before his arm phylacteries. What good deed did the son of publican Ma`yan do? Far be it that he ever committed a good deed, but once he prepared a breakfast for the city council but they did not come to eat it. He said, let the poor eat it, so it should not go to waste. Some say, he was walking in the street when a loaf fell down from him and a poor person picked it up. He did not say anything [in order not to embarrass him]. After days this pious man saw his comrade the pious walking in gardens, in orchards, at water sources, and he saw the son of Ma`yan the publican with his tongue out on the river bank trying in vain to reach the water. He also saw Miriam, Onion-leaf’s daughter. Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said, she was hanging on her breast nipples. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the hinge of Hell’s door was fixed in her ear. He asked them, why? They told him, because she fasted and made herself famous. Some say, she fasted one day and was dissolute two. He asked them for how long is she in this state? They told him, until Simeon ben Shetah comes, when we shall remove it from her ear and put it in his ear. [He asked them, and why?] They told him, because he said, that if I would be elected Patriarch, I would kill sorcerers. But now he was made Patriarch and he did not kill them. In fact, there are eighty women sorcerers in the cave of Ascalon who hurt the world. You shall go and tell him! He told them, I am afraid that since he is Patriarch he will not believe me. They told him, if he will believe you it will be good. In case that he will not believe you, perform a sign in front of him: put your hand on an eye and take it out, put it back and it will be back. He went and told him. He wanted to perform [the miracle] before him, but he told him, I know that you are a pious person; more than that you could do. In fact, I never spoke it with my mouth even though I intended so in my thoughts. Immediately Simeon ben Shetaḥ went on a stormy day and took with him eighty select men. He gave them eighty clean garments, put them in eighty new amphoras, and put them on them upside down. He told them, when I whistle once, put on your garments. When I whistle for the second time, come in all of you together. When you enter, each of you shall choose one and lift her from the ground, since the nature of this sorcery is that separated from the earth it cannot do anything. He went and stood at the entrance to the cave. He said אוים, אוים, open for me, I am one of yours. They asked, how did you come here on such a day? He said, I was walking between the raindrops. They asked him, what do you want to do here? He said, to learn and to teach. Every one should make what he is able to. One of them said what she said and produced bread. One of them said what she said and produced meat. One of them said what she said and produced dishes. One said what she said and produced wine. They asked him, what can you do? He told them, when I whistle twice, I shall bring here eighty select men for your pleasure and entertainment. They told him, that is what we desire. When he whistled the first time, they put on their garments; when he whistled for the second time, they all entered together. He said, every one who comes shall select his mate. They lifted them, took them away, and crucified them. That is what we have stated: “It happened that Simeon ben Shetaḥ hanged women in Ascalon. [They said, he hanged eighty women but one does not try two on the same day.” But the hour needed it.] It was stated Babli Sanhedrin 46a, Yebamot 90b. In the Babylonian version is added: “not to transgress the Torah, but to make a fence around the Torah.” This means that the court must act under emergency rules covered by the police powers of the king (or assumed by the court in the absence of a legitimate government.). “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, I heard that one punishes not according to practice and punishes not according to Torah.” How far? Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, up to a murmur The court may act on hearsay.. Rebbi Yose said, by witnesses, but without warning He disputes that hearsay is ever accepted (except when expressly permitted as in the case of a husband who has disappeared) and always requires valid testimony. In emergency situations he permits rendering judgment if the criminal act was proven but not the criminal intent in that there is no proof that the perpetrator was warned by valid witnesses not commit the criminal act.. It happened that one went on the road riding in his horse on the Sabbath. They brought him to court and stoned him. But was it not a rabbinic violation While the rider broke the positive biblical commandment to let his animal rest on the Sabbath, this is not a prosecutable offense. Riding on the Sabbath or holiday is a rabbinic prohibition (Mishnah Yom Tov 5:2), not prosecutable by biblical standards and certainly not a capital crime.? But at the time In the Babylonian texts: “in the times of the Greeks”. He was executed not for riding on his horse on the Sabbath but for showing support for the Seleucide party during the Maccabean wars. it was needed. Also it happened that one went on the road together with his wife. He turned to behind a wall and satisfied his needs with her. They brought him to court and whipped him. But was it not his wife No criminal act was committed.? But he behaved in a degrading way. A rich tax-gatherer called Ma’jan had done many evil deeds. In the same city, lived a young. poor student of the Torah. They both died and had funerals on the same day. Ma’jan’s was splendid. Work stopped throughout the city as the townspeople followed him to his final resting place. However, no-one took any notice of the death of the student, let alone his funeral. Why should this be? The answer is this …. Ma’jan had arranged a banquet to which he invited the city councillors – unsurprisingly, they refused to attend and eat with a tax-gatherer, and so, to show his contempt for them, Ma’jan invited all the poor, sick and beggars of the city to attend instead. As he presided over this magnificent charitable act, death overtook him, and all his evil deeds were forgotten by the people because of the good deed in which he was engaged at the moment of his death. Now, one of the student’s friends had a dream, in which he saw the fate of the two souls after their death. The student was in paradise, the garden of the King, enjoying its beauty and the richness of its vegetation and streams. The man who had been rich in his life, Ma’jan, was also standing on the banks of the stream, trying to reach the water, but unable to do so.
MISHNAH: The House of Shammai are saying, one brings well-being offerings and does not lean on them, but no elevation offerings135Since most of well-being offerings is consumed and the preparation of food is permitted on a holiday, there is no question that these may be brought on a holiday. As explained in Mishnah 2, the House of Shammai follow a long tradition which holds that biblically required but rabbinically prohibited leaning on the sacrificial animal may not be done in the Temple on a full holiday. Since nothing of elevation offerings is human food, on a full holiday they prohibit bringing private elevation offerings, even those biblically required as appearance offering.. But the House of Hillel are saying one brings well-being and elevation offerings and leans on them136Both the appearance offering as elevation offering and the holiday well-being offerings are biblically required on the holiday, which means the full holiday, as exemplified by Pentecost which is only one day. Therefore the House of Hillel admit both kinds of offerings on the full holiday and disregard the rabbinic prohibition of leaning on since most rabbinic prohibitions are disregarded in the Temple.. HALAKHAH: 137This Halakhah is Yom Tov 2:4, explained there in Notes 56–84. The House of Shammai say, irregular leaning-on was permitted. But the House of Hillel say, irregular leaning-on was not permitted. What is irregular leaning-on? From the day before. Rebbi Ze`ira said, everybody agrees that he did not fulfill his obligation regarding the reparation offering of a sufferer from skin disease if he leaned on the day before; he fulfilled his obligation with voluntary well-being offerings for which he leaned on the day before. Where do they disagree? The festival well-being offerings. The House of Shammai treat them like voluntary well-being offerings; the House of Hillel treat them like the reparation offering of a sufferer from skin disease. Rebbi Yasa said, that what you are saying, he did not fulfill his obligation regarding the reparation offering of a sufferer from skin disease if he leaned on the day before, {only} on time. If its time has passed it becomes like holiday well-being offerings. “The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since at a time when I forbid to the private person I am permitting it for Heaven, when it is permitted for the private person is it not logical that it be permitted for Heaven? The House of Shammai said to them, vows and voluntary gifts are proof, since they are permitted to the private person but forbidden to Heaven. The House of Hillel said to them, no. If you are speaking about vows and voluntary gifts which have no fixed time, what does this imply for the festival offering which has a fixed time? The House of Shammai answered them, the festival offering has no fixed time since if he did not offer it on the first day, he may offer it on the second day, if he did not offer it on the second day, he may offer it on the third day. The House of Hillel told them, the festival offering has a fixed time, for if he did not offer it on the holiday of pilgrimage he may not offer it after the holiday. The House of Shammai said to them, is it not already said: only what can be eaten by any person this alone may be made for you138Ex. 12:16.? The House of Hillel answered them, is that a proof? For you it may not be made, [but] it is made for Heaven. Abba Shaul says it was based on another reason: Since when your stove is closed down, your Master’s stove is open, when your stove is open it only is logical that your Master’s stove should be open. Another explanation: It is not in order that your table should be full but the table of your (Master) [Creator] be empty.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was passing by the school when he heard them reciting the verse1391Chr. 29:21., they sacrificed animal sacrifices and brought elevation sacrifices the next day. He said, he who interrupts follows the House of Shammai; he who reads it as one sentence follows the House of Hillel. One understands elevation sacrifices the next day; but well-being sacrifices the next day? Are not well-being sacrifices brought following the House of Shammai? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, David died on Pentecost; all of Israel were deep mourners and they brought the next day. “It happened that Hillel the Elder brought his elevation offering to the Temple courtyard and leaned on it. The students of the House of Shammai ganged up on him. He started to wag its tail, said to them, look, it is a female and I brought it as well-being sacrifice, and kept them talking about other matters until they left. After some time the House of Shammai became strong and they wanted to fix practice following their words. There was there Bava ben Buta from the students of the House of Shammai who realized that practice followed the House of Hillel. Once he entered the Temple courtyard and found it desolate. He said, the house of those who make our God’s House desolate shall be desolate. What did he do? He sent and brought 3’000 young lambs from Qedar sheep, checked them for defects, and displayed them on the Temple Mount. He said to them, listen to me my brothers, the House of Israel. Anybody who wants to bring an elevation sacrifice may bring it and lean on it, to bring a well-being sacrifice may bring it and lean on it. At that moment, practice was fixed following the House of Hillel; and nobody said anything.” Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, this cup for breakfast has to be full81Deut. 4:32.; the worm in the wood comes from itself; any coal which does not cause a burn at the start will not cause one. “Again it happened that a student of Hillel brought his elevation offering to the Temple courtyard and leaned on it. A student of Shammai saw him and said to him, what is this leaning-on? He said to him, what about being silent? He silenced him by a reprimand and he left.”
MISHNAH: If Pentecost falls on a Friday, the House of Shammai are saying that its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath140Since the House of Shammai do not permit the elevation offerings to be brought on Friday, which is the holiday, nor on the Sabbath when they are biblically prohibited, they must declare Sunday as a minor holiday similar to the intermediate days of Passover and Tabernacles., but the House of Hillel are saying that it has no slaughter-day.141Since the holiday is only one day, every pilgrim is asked to bring all his offerings on the holiday itself. They agree that if it falls on the Sabbath that its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath; the High Priest does not wear his garments, and one is permitted eulogies and fasting, in order not to support the words of those who are saying that Pentecost is on Sunday142In this case (which is excluded in the computed calendar), no private slaughter is possible on the holiday itself. It may not be done in advance of the holiday (Halakhah 1:4, after Note 131). Therefore the first day available for the pilgrimage offerings is Sunday. While in the biblical text Pentecost is a purely agricultural holiday, the start of the wheat harvest, both in Pharisaic as in standard Sadducee (as given in the Book of Jubilees) interpretation it is the anniversary of the theophany on Sinai and therefore the anniversary of the creation of the organized Synagogue. Only the otherwise unremarkable sect of the Boethusians insist on counting the fifty days starting from a Sunday, therefore having Pentecost on a Sunday but its calendar date variable and not available as the anniversary of anything. Since by the time of the formulation of the Mishnah Boethusians long had disappeared, one may consider these rules as intended against Christian practice which manages to combine the Boethusian variable date with the interpretation as anniversary of the founding of the Chuch. The High Priest is prevented from serving on that day, to avoid that the day be considered festive in any way. Similarly, even though the day is an extension of the holiday, one is invited to treat it as a regular weekday on which eulogies and fasts are permitted.. HALAKHAH: “If Pentecost falls on a Friday, the House of Shammai are saying that its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath, but the House of Hillel are saying that it has no slaughter-day.” But its day is its slaughter-day. Here the House of Shammai are saying, its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath, and the High Priest (wears) [does not wear] his garments (?)143The scribe’s text (in parentheses) has to be accepted. The [corrector’s] seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the text. The statement about the High Priest is formulated in the name of the House of Hillel. Is it rejected by the House of Shammai? The House of Shammai would have had to object to the rule formulated by the House of Hillel if they still had existed at a time when Christianity had become an factor.[.] It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since in a time where there are well-being and elevation offerings following the House of Hillel the High Priest does not wear his garments, in a time when there are no well-being and elevation offerings following the House of Shammai, not so much more? 144This paragraph is copied from Megillah 1:3, Notes 134–140. One verse says, the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work145Ex. 23:16.. Another verse says, any productive work you shall not do146Lev. 23:21.. Rebbi Ḥanania said, how could both verses be sustained? If it falls on a weekday you bring the festival offering and refrain from work. If it falls on the Sabbath, the following day you bring the festival offering and harvest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, only ears for her dough. As what was stated, “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me {to bring} wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement on that day is forbidden funeral orations, and fasts, and working.” “They agree that if it falls on the Sabbath that its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath.” So the House of Hillel are saying, its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath. Whose are the hides147By biblical decree, the hides belong to the Cohanim serving at the moment of sacrifice, Lev. 7:8. Now on a holiday where all of Israel is commanded to appear in the Temple, all Cohanim also are asked to appear and therefore have equal claim to all hides of holiday sacrifices. But on all other days, only the watch of service of this week has a claim; in fact, only the clan serving on that very day. Therefore if the slaughter-day is treated as an extension of the holiday, all Cohanim must be admitted to service and the hides belong to all watches. But if it is a regular weekday, only the serving clan or, if its personnel is not sufficient, the serving watch are admitted to service and to receive the prebends.? Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rebbi Joshia: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, of all watches. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, of this watch. And you are saying, its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath; whose are the hides? The disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish148Is it really a problem on Pentecost which falls on a Sabbath and the Cohanim on pilgrimage cannot leave the place of the Temple on the Sabbath and therefore are all available for service on the next day?? Rebbi Joḥanan said, Pentecost has all of seven days as make-up149Cf. Halakhah 1:1, Note 33. Babli 17a,b.. Rav Hoshaia objected: was it not stated, just as the New Moon is one day after its count, to Pentecost is one day after its count? Rebbi La said, if he did not bring his holiday sacrifice on the first day, he may bring it all seven days150It is obvious that the pilgrimage offerings are holiday offerings, to be serviced by all Cohanim who therefore are entitled to their share of the hides.. 151This text is from Yoma 1:1, Notes 184–190. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Every day152Of the seven days of preparation. the High Priest dresses in his robes153The eight garments prescribed for the High Priest., comes, and sacrifices the daily morning sacrifice. If there are vows or voluntary sacrifices154The legal difference between a vow and a voluntary offering, which also needs dedication, is that a vow is formulated as a personal obligation, “I am taking upon me the obligation to offer such and such a sacrifice.” In that case, if the animal selected for the sacrifice becomes disqualified for any reason, the maker of the vow has to bring a replacement. A voluntary offering is a dedication, “this animal shall be such-and-such a sacrifice.” If the animal becomes disqualified, no replacement is due., he offers them. Then he goes to his house, and returns to bring the daily evening sacrifice, and comes to stay overnight in the Palhedrin lodge. Rebbi Uqba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He did this only on Sabbath and holidays155He seems to imply every Sabbath and holiday during the year, including New Year’s Day and the Sabbath preceding the day of Atonement.. There are Tannaim who state: the diadem156The diadem (Ex. 28:36–38) which is worn to eliminate iniquities of sancta, to legitimate sacrifices even if they do not completely satisfy the prescribed rules. propitiates on his forehead. There are Tannaim who state: even in a corner. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, it always shall be on his forehead157Ex. 29:38.. But he who says, even in a corner, from the Day of Atonement158When the High Priest officiates in white robes without the diadem.. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, supports Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun; he who says, even in a corner, supports Rebbi Uqba.
MISHNAH: One washes hands159The impurity of hands is rabbinic. Unless hands are consciously guarded from touching anything impure they are presumed to be impure in second degree and can be purified by having a quartarius (about 133 ml) of water poured over them. for profane food, tithe, and heave, but for sancta one immerses160The consumption of sancta requires not only a pure body, but if the eater’s hands were not consciously guarded from touching anything impure after he immersed his whole body in a miqweh, at the time of the meal his hands have to be immersed again in a minimum if 40 seah (about 510 l) of water.. And for the Red Cow if his hands became impure so became his body161Even if according to rabbinic rules the rabbinic impurity of his hands does not imply impurity of the body, for handling the ashes of the Red Cow or water containing such ashes he must be considered impure and therefore disqualified.. HALAKHAH: Is hand-washing required for profane food162This is a discussion of impurity imparted by unwashed hands. The basic observation is that an impure person or object which touches anything susceptible to impurity imparts impurity of one degree lower. (However, the majority opinion is that fluids do not touch but merge, and therefore transmit impurity of the same degree as the acting material.) There are three stages of biblical impurity, “grandfather of impurity”, a corpse or a house in which there is a corpse, “original impurity”, anything touched by a corpse or (with a few exceptions) found in a house containing a corpse, and any other impurity described in the Torah, and “impurity in the first degree”, biblically imparted by contact with original impurity or rabbinically by contact with any impure fluid. The other stages are rabbinical; persons or food impure in stage n by touch impart impurity of stage n+1. The technical term is “impure” for anything able to impart impurity and “disqualified” for matters unusable because of impurity but not imparting impurity to others. Profane food may be impure in stage 1, it becomes disqualified (cannot be dedicated for any sacred use) in stage 2. Heave and Second Tithe (sacra not connected with the Temple) are impure in stages 1,2 and disqualified in stage 3. Temple sacra are impure in stages 1,2,3 and disqualified in stage 4.? But it must follow Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, hand-washing is required for profane food. It is everybody’s opinion, so he should separate from heave163Since unwashed hands rabbinically are considered impure in stage two, handling heave with unwashed hands disqualifies it.. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are first degree impure for profane food and second degree impure for heave164Touching with unwashed hands always disqualifies. Babli Ḥulin 33b; differently Tosephta Taharot 1:6.. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follow Rebbi Aqiba, as we have stated there165Mishnah Yadaim 3:1., “if somebody puts his hands into a leprous house166As described in Lev. 14:33–54. Bodily entrance into the house causes biblical impurity (vv. 46,47), standing outside and reaching into the house only causes rabbinic impurity., his hands are impure in the first degree, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages are saying, his hands are impure in the second degree”? There, it follows the rabbis; what is their reason here? Since you tell him that his hands are impure in the second degree, he will separate from heave. But did they not decide about them because of fluids; then they should be impure in the first degree167Since unwashed hands touching any fluid make the fluid rabbinically impure in the first degree, it would be reasonable to consider unwashed hands as impure in the first degree.? It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since the Tevul Yom, which is a word from the Torah, only disqualifies168An impure person can qualify to eat sancta by first immersing himself in a miqweh, to remove his impurity, and then waiting until sundown, when he becomes pure (Lev. 22:6–7). The intermediate stage, no longer impure but not yet pure, is called Tevul Yom, “immersed during daytime”. Since the verse prohibits him to consume sacred food it is inferred that he also may not handle it. Since he is no longer impure, his touch cannot make impure. It is inferred that his touch disqualifies., impure hands, which are from their words, not so much more? Another explanation: Did they not decide about hands only that he should separate from heave? Since you tell him that his hands are impure in the second degree, he will separate from heave. There, we have stated169Mishnah Bikkurim2:1. The corrector added the text presupposed by the scribe.: [“For heave and First Fruits one incurs the penalty of death170Eating them in impurity is a deadly sin. or a fine of a fifth171If misappropriated, the restitution must be at least 125%.; they are forbidden to lay persons, are property of the Cohen172They might be traded from one Cohen to another and a Cohen may use them as gifts to marry a wife since, even if she was a lay person before, she becomes a member of the Cohen’s family by marriage and may eat heave and First Fruits., may be lifted by one in 100173If heave or First Fruits were mixed with profane food and are now no longer recognizable, if they constitute less than 1% of the mixture, 1% may be lifted and designated heave or First Fruits and the remainder freed for lay use., need washing of the hands and sundown.] This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe.” There, you are saying tithe does not need washing, but here, you are saying that tithe needs washing. When you are saying that tithe needs washing, following the rabbis; but when you are saying that tithe does not need washing, following Rebbi Meïr. As we have stated there174Mishnah Parah 11:5. Babli 18b., “anything which requires immersion by the words of the Sopherim175Part of the original institutions of Judaism formulated by Ezra and his successors. makes sancta impure and disqualifies heave but is permitted for profane food and tithe, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages forbid for tithe176Since tithe becomes impure by touch of hands or things impure in the second degree and unwashed hands always are impure in the second degree..” He did not understand that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: What means, “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body became disqualified from consuming tithe177But not touching.. How it that? If you are saying, tithe needs washing, [for one who intends to eat. If you are saying, tithe does not need washing,] if he intends to touch178The better text probably is obtained by deleting the corrector’s addition: “If you are saying, tithe needs washing, if he intends to touch? But does not one who wants to eat also want to touch?”. But does not one who wants to eat also want to touch? Only because of [handwashing as discipline. But did we not state “heave”? For heave is there] handwashing as discipline179Again it is better to delete the corrector’s addition. The washing of hands is “discipline of heave”.? Therefore about profane food prepared in the purity of sancta. But is profane food prepared in the purity of sancta not profane food180Food prepared to the standards of sancta is not a sanctum unless dedicated, which in the absence of a Temple is impossible. Therefore it remains profane and its status cannot be changed by touching with hands which are impure in the second degree.? Explain either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are first degree impure for profane food and second degree impure for heave164Touching with unwashed hands always disqualifies. Babli Ḥulin 33b; differently Tosephta Taharot 1:6.. Or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, as we have stated there181Mishnah Taharot 2:8.: “profane food prepared in the purity of sancta is profane food. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq says, it is like heave, to be impure in two stages and disqualified in the third162This is a discussion of impurity imparted by unwashed hands. The basic observation is that an impure person or object which touches anything susceptible to impurity imparts impurity of one degree lower. (However, the majority opinion is that fluids do not touch but merge, and therefore transmit impurity of the same degree as the acting material.) There are three stages of biblical impurity, “grandfather of impurity”, a corpse or a house in which there is a corpse, “original impurity”, anything touched by a corpse or (with a few exceptions) found in a house containing a corpse, and any other impurity described in the Torah, and “impurity in the first degree”, biblically imparted by contact with original impurity or rabbinically by contact with any impure fluid. The other stages are rabbinical; persons or food impure in stage n by touch impart impurity of stage n+1. The technical term is “impure” for anything able to impart impurity and “disqualified” for matters unusable because of impurity but not imparting impurity to others. Profane food may be impure in stage 1, it becomes disqualified (cannot be dedicated for any sacred use) in stage 2. Heave and Second Tithe (sacra not connected with the Temple) are impure in stages 1,2 and disqualified in stage 3. Temple sacra are impure in stages 1,2,3 and disqualified in stage 4..” “But for sancta one immerses160The consumption of sancta requires not only a pure body, but if the eater’s hands were not consciously guarded from touching anything impure after he immersed his whole body in a miqweh, at the time of the meal his hands have to be immersed again in a minimum if 40 seah (about 510 l) of water..” Anywhere we state “immerses” it means in 40 seah. But did we not state182Cf. Tosephta Yadaim 1:5., “he who washes his hands in the Temple needs a quartarius”? Rebbi Eleazar said, here for impure hands, there fore pure hands. [Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Hillel said, even if you are saying here and there for pure hands, here and there for impure hands.]183The provenience of the corrector’s addition is unknown. The spelling חנינא is Babylonian. Here for dedicated Temple sancta, there for profane food prepared in the purity of sancta. “And for the Red Cow if his hands became impure so became his body161Even if according to rabbinic rules the rabbinic impurity of his hands does not imply impurity of the body, for handling the ashes of the Red Cow or water containing such ashes he must be considered impure and therefore disqualified..” Rebbi Ḥanina said, not that they introduced new impurities for the Red Cow but they said, he who becomes impure in an easy impurity is like one who became impure in severe impurity184An easy impurity is one which is removed by immersion in a miqweh. A severe impurity needs some additional action, either a waiting period or a sacrifice to regain access to Temple and sancta.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: And it shall be collected by a man, why does the verse say, pure185Num. 19:9.? Think of it. Even if you collect it by a shovel, the Torah requires pure. Where do we hold? If a metal shovel, but also flat metal implements are subject to impurity. If a wooden shovel, is it not held together because of something subject to impurity186Any metal object is subject to impurity. A wooden object is subject to impurity if it encloses a volume; it becomes impure by being used as a container. Therefore it seems that the collection of the ashes, required by the verse, is an impossible task.? Rav Hoshaia said, explain it if he collects it with a plank187A flat piece of wood is impervious to impurity.. Then it is impossible that he should not carry it188In most cases of severe impurity, such as carcasses of non-kosher four-legged animals, and impurity caused by human bodies, carrying the impure object without touching it, causes the carrier to be impure (Lev. 11:28, 15:10). Since in relation to the ashes of the Cow any impurity is severe, there is transfer of impurity even if the ashes are carried on a wooden plank which itself cannot become impure.. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, explain it if he collects it with a coarse cross-beam189Greek μέλαθρον. This not only is a flat piece of wood, it is so heavy that the load of ashes is not noticeable; it causes no impurity by carrying.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: what is the difference between a person pure for the Red Cow and an empty vessel pure for the Red Cow190The Mishnah (Note 174) extends impurity automatically only for humans, not to vessels.? He answered him, And it shall be collected by a pure, why does the the verse say, man? Only to prescribe extraordinary purity to the man to handle the water for ashes of the Red Cow and the ashes of the Red Cow. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The moving which I declared pure for you for crawling animals191In the special section about impurity of dead crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–38), impurity by carrying is not mentioned. I declared impure for you here192The rabbinic restrictions in the case of the ashes of the Cow are justified biblically..
MISHNAH: He who immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food is prohibited tithe193One who immersed himself to eat his profane food in ritual purity may not eat Second Tithe without immersing himself a second time with the correct intention. The other cases are to be interpreted similarly.. He who immersed himself for tithe and considers himself pure for tithe is prohibited heave. He who immersed himself heave and considers himself pure for heave is prohibited sancta. He who immersed himself for sancta and considers himself pure for sancta is prohibited handling ashes of the Red Cow. He who immersed himself for the more stringent is permitted the lesser one. He who immersed himself and does not consider himself pure is as if he did not immerse194He immersed himself for cleanliness, not for purity. His immersion does not remove impurity.. HALAKHAH: But needs profane food intention195Since profane food does not require pure bodies there should be no requirement for immersion and therefore no possibility of intention. Babli 19a.? He is informing you of more: even if he immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food he is prohibited tithe. Did not Rebbi Eleazar say, the count for profane food is the count for tithe196Profane food only can become impure in the first degree and disqualify in the second. The same holds for Second Tithe.? Here it is for eating, there for touching197Eating Second Tithe needs a body pure by intention but not handling it.. He who immerses himself without specification is pure for all of them198Tosephta 3:2; Babli 19a. For R. Joḥanan if at the moment of immersion it was impossible for the person to eat tithe, heave, or sancta, the immersion cannot be valid for one of these.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had relationship with all of them. As long as his feet are in the water, he may consider himself pure for any stage he chooses199Since water is considered one body, the person standing in the water in this respect is like one immersed and still has the choice of the degree of impurity imparted by the immersion.. There, we have stated200Mishnah Taharot 8:9.: “A staff which is full of impure fluids201Not that the staff contains fluid but that it is covered by fluid from top to bottom. If the staff touches the water, for R. Joshua all the fluid is connected to and becomes part of the 40 seah which purify., when it touched the miqweh it is pure, the words of Rebbi Joshua. But the Sages are saying, only if he immerses it completely.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, where do they disagree? For easy impurity; but for severe impurity184An easy impurity is one which is removed by immersion in a miqweh. A severe impurity needs some additional action, either a waiting period or a sacrifice to regain access to Temple and sancta. even Rebbi Joshua agrees. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they even disagree for severe impurity. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “As long as his feet are in the water, he may consider himself pure for any stage he chooses.” Explain it about one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks202Whose impurity is rabbinic. Babli 18b.. Did not Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the body of one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks is pure without special intention203Unless the person has the intention of being pure for heave etc., he is biblically pure and, since in this instance his rabbinic disqualification is inactive, also rabbinically.? From the moment he intended elevated purity he (needs) [does not need] intention204The correction is unnecessary; once a higher level of purity is desired, no specific intention is needed to invalidate the prior immersion.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish205Mishnah Miqwaot 7:6. Babli 19a.: “A miqweh containing exactly 40 seah into two persons descended, [both are pure]. One after the other, the first one is pure, the second impure206If the first one left the miqweh before the second entered, the water clinging to his body is missing in the miqweh which therefore cannot contain the full 40 seah needed to purify.. Rebbi Jehudah says, if the feet of the first touched the water, the second one also is pure207Following R. Joshua (Note 201)..” Still this is about one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks202Whose impurity is rabbinic. Babli 18b.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A woman in her period may rinse a radish in a cave208Containing 40 seah of water and therefore being a natural miqweh. and it is pure. If she lifted it in any way out of the water it is impure. And we have stated thereto: Rebbi Jehudah declares it pure in the name of Rebbi Joshua209But for the Sages the radish remains pure only if at all times it is fully immersed.. And represents a menstruating woman not a severe impurity? This disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and it has no standing210There is no explaining away and R. Joḥanan’s opinion on the point of view of R. Joshua is proven..
MISHNAH: The garments of the vulgar211A person who disregards the rules of impurity (unless on a pilgrimage to the Temple); cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. are “support”212Rabbinically it is considered a source of original impurity. The expression “support” comes from the severe impurity of a menstruating woman where Lev. 15:21 implies that any implement which had supported her body (chair or bed) imparts impurity to anybody touching it and his garments. for Pharisees213People observing the laws on impurity in their daily lives.; the garments of Pharisees are “support” for the eaters of heave; the garments of eaters of heave are “support” for the eaters of sancta. Yose ben Yoezer214Cf. Mishnah 2:2. was the most pious of the priests but his handkerchief217If the wife of the vulgar, still a source of original impurity from her period, sat on the garment, the latter became an original source of impurity. Therefore there is a (slim) possibility that the Pharisaic restriction correspond to a case of actual biblical impurity. Babli Ḥulin 35b. was “support” for sancta. Joḥanan ben Gudgada all his life ate in the purity of sancta but his handkerchief was “support” for the ashes of the Red Cow215But not for the eaters of sancta. This Mishnah contradicts the practice established after the destruction of the Temple which considers profane food eaten in the purity of sancta not different from other profane food (Note 180).. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They stated it for touchings216The garments of a vulgar make a Pharisee impure by touch but not by load nor by “support”.. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, from where did this garment become impure by support? He told him, explain it that the vulgar’s wife sat on it naked217If the wife of the vulgar, still a source of original impurity from her period, sat on the garment, the latter became an original source of impurity. Therefore there is a (slim) possibility that the Pharisaic restriction correspond to a case of actual biblical impurity. Babli Ḥulin 35b.. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: As you are saying there, there is no “support” for profane food but there is “support” for profane food by touching218Only humans and implements can become impure by load or “support” but foodstuffs become impure only by touch., similarly there is no load for profane food but there is load for profane food by touching. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if she sat on a chair and touched it219What is the status of the chair?? As you look at it, if load, there is load; it touching there is touching220In both cases the status of the impurity is the same.. As you are saying about load, on condition that most of it be carried, similarly if most of it be touched221R. Jeremiah has a point; the two sources of impurity are not equivalent. For impurity by load or “support”, most of the weight of the cause of impurity must be carried or must be loaded on, but the smallest amount of touching has the same consequence as touching most of the impure surface area.? May the body of a Pharisee be considered like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave222If the garments of a Pharisee are impure like those of a sufferer from gonorrhea, is it not reasonable to expect the same from the Pharisee’s body?? Rebbi Joḥanan asked, but did we not state223Mishnah Taharot 7:5., “somebody who let a vulgar watch his house, at times when he sees those who enter and those who leave, food, and drinks, and open clay vessels are impure. But couches and seats and clay vessels tightly wound closed are pure224As long as the Pharisee has control over the stream of visitors, only things impure by touch are considered impure; the vulgar is not supposed to cause impurity by sitting on something even though this would be the cause of biblical original impurity (not only derivative impurity as in the case of touch) if the vulgar actually were a sufferer from gonorrhea.”? If you are saying, they considered the body of a Pharisee like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave then even those tightly [wound] closed should be impure225Since the exception for tightly closed vessels applies only to tent impurity.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it concerning a vulgar at a Pharisee’s, and you cannot infer anything226The entire Mishnah refers to ordinary impurity on the level of profane food and is irrelevant for the question raised here.. Rebbi Mana said, so said my teacher Rebbi Yose, all that we are considering here227The Mishnah in Taharot. refers to heave. You may know that this is so, since we have stated there, “even moved, even tied, everything is impure.” Did they not say they are impure, not because moving228The part of the Mishnah quoted here refers to the situation that the Pharisee has no control over the stream of visitors which therefore may include menstruating women which may make seats and couches impure by biblical standards. This proves that these arguments do not apply to the vulgar himself and that therefore also the Mishnah here has to be read to apply to garments only and to nothing else.? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, concerning heave there is neither separations, nor movings, nor [private domain, nor] vulgar229Rabbinic extensions of impurity do not apply except in cases where they are mentioned explicitly. The corrector’s addition has to be deleted since it refers to a rule, that questionable cases in private domains have to be judged restrictively, which by general consensus is of biblical status.. May heave itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to sancta230Same question as that referred to in Note 222.? Let us hear from the following. If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses231If he prepares vessels for use with sancta but he himself is not pure for the consumption of sancta, it is clear that the vessels must be immersed since by necessity he touched them. But immersion may be done indirectly as described.? Could he not bind it with a (sit)232Here the corrector’s text has to be accepted since the scribe’s sit is a measure, half a hand-breadth. [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it231If he prepares vessels for use with sancta but he himself is not pure for the consumption of sancta, it is clear that the vessels must be immersed since by necessity he touched them. But immersion may be done indirectly as described.. May a sanctum itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to the ashes of the Red Cow? Let us hear from the following. Two pitchers, one pure for sancta and one pure for heave, who touched one another are both pure233Mishnah 7 applies only to humans, not to vessels.. But does not a baraita disagree? They made that the person pure for the ashes of the Cow who moved spittle or semen of one pure for heave that it became impure234Spittle is biblically original impurity for the sufferer from gonorrhea; it is pure for the person pure for heave. But semen is biblically impure from everybody. Therefore for the rabbinic extensions described in Mishnah 7 there is no difference in the rules according to levels of impurity.. The same is pure for heave and pure for sancta.
MISHNAH: Sancta are more stringent than heave in that one may immerse vessels inside vessels1Vessels immersed in a miqweh to be pure for use with sancta must be immersed singly. For heave one may immerse vessels inside vessels if only it is possible for the water to touch each vessel fully inside and out. for heave but not for sancta. One considers back2Clay vessels by biblical standards become impure only from inside a cavity. Any impurity on the concave parts of the outside is rabbinical., inside, and finger-holes3Holes on the outside of a pot or cup into which one puts his fingers to hold the cup are independent cavities. For heave, all these rules of rabbinic impurity are observed. For sancta any impurity of any source disqualifies the vessel. for heave but not for sancta. He who carries “support” may carry heave but not sancta4A person may carry both the shoe of a sufferer from gonorrhea and heave if both of them are placed on wooden planks (impervious to impurity) and the carrier never touches shoe and heave.. The garments of eaters of heave are “support” for sancta5Mishnah 2:7.. The action for sancta is different from that for heave in that for sancta one unties before immersing whereas for heave one may tie and then immerse6For heave one may assume that the water penetrates any rope with which immersed vessels are tied. For sancta this assumption may not be made.. HALAKHAH: “Sancta are more stringent than heave,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because eaters of heave are vigilant but eaters of sancta are not vigilant7Heave as a countryside food is eaten daily by Cohanim but sancta only at the time of their service in the Temple, usually two weeks in a year, or by laity on pilgrimage. The eaters of heave may be expected to follow an exact procedure at all times.. Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana, is that eminence? If it were a thing equal for both but impure for one and pure for the other, that would be eminence. He said to him, explain it if it is connected to sancta8If a Cohen happens to eat heave in the week in which he is eating sancta, he may not immerse vessels for heave together with those for sancta since they follow different rules and in this case it it obvious that for one and the same person the rules for sancta are more stringent.. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if the impure was [heavy] a lb. one does not immerse it9The permission for eaters of heave to immerse a smaller vessel inside a larger one holds only if the smaller vessel weighs less than one Roman pound. Cf. Babli 21a.. Abba Shaul said, also for heave one immerses only a basked or a willow-basket10Greek γύργαθος.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Abba Shaul and Rebbi Simeon said the same, as we have stated there11Mishnah Miqwaot 8:5., “if one holds a human or vessels and immerses them, they are impure, but if he had rinsed his hands in water they are pure12If his hands block the access of the water in the miqweh to even the smallest part of the surface area, the immersion is ineffective. According to R. Simeon it is possible to hold something in the miqweh without obstructing the access of the water.. Rebbi Simeon said, he should hold them loosely so the water may come into them.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Joḥanan would agree with Abba Shaul but Abba Shaul not with Rebbi Simeon13Abba Shaul holds that joint immersion is possible only if the outer vessel is permeable; hands are not permeable.. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Abba Shaul. It was stated thus: Practice follows his words. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, but the words of the Sages are that one acts thus even for sancta, since finger-holes are no interior; for vessels of sancta all is interior14Finger-holes while cavities cannot be used to store anything since they have no bottom; they are irrelevant by biblical standards. But it is agreed in the Mishnah that for vessels used for sancta, rabbinic impurity is treated as biblical.. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It happened that seven Elders assembled in the valley of Rimmon15In the South of Judea at a time when the main Jewish settlement was in the Galilee.. Who were they? Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon, and Rebbi Neḥemiah, and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. They said, how many distinctions have sancta compared to heave16In all Mishnaiot together. The main difference seems to be whether back and finger-holes are one or two subjects.? Rebbi Meïr says, thirteen. Rebbi Yose says, twelve. Rebbi Meïr said, so I heard from Rebbi Aqiba, thirteen. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, I served Rebbi Aqiba standing more than you served sitting17He served standing as a member of his household whereas R. Meïr was a student in R. Aqiba’s classes. Therefore his contact was more intensive and extensive.. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian is a true Alexandrian. They rose kissing, and if any of them had no kaftan, his colleague cut half of his kaftan and gave it to him. And why did they do this? Because all of them were explaining the following verse, each one in seven ways: I shall sing to my beloved, my beloved’s song for his vineyard18Is. 5:1.. They acclaimed the last one for the versions he found in it. They said, this was Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai. Why were they exerting themselves in this matter19Convening a meeting at a far-out place in order to proclaim an intercalary month.? They were explaining, saying, molten gods you shall not make for yourself. What is written next? The holiday of unleavened bread you shall observe20Ex. 34:17–18.. They said, anybody able to intercalate a year and he does not intercalate is as if he worshipped strange gods. When they were leaving they said, come and let us record our act. A rock of marble was there. Each of them took a nail and fixed it in it; it descended and sank in as in dough. Until now it is called the rock of nails. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the finger-holes which they mentioned, whether inside or outside, in the manner in which cleanly people hold it21Cleanly people hold the cup on the outside, so that their fingers do not touch the drink. The problem with finger-holes is that they are cavities, and as such potential subjects of biblical impurity, but since the cavities are horizontal, not vertical, they are not containers and therefore impervious to biblical impurity. Babli 22b.. Rebbi Ze`ira said, “it is impossible to say, about one which is wiped dry, for hands are not made impure by anything wiped dry22Tosephta Kelim Baba Batra 3:9. Since unwashed hands rabbinically are impure in the second degree, when dry they have no influence on the status of vessels. (By touching they still disqualify heave and make sacrificial food impure.). In truth it is impossible to say, if it is full of fluid, for in the moment he touched it he made it impure23In this case it is certain that the fluid touched the hand. By rabbinic tradition any such fluid is impure in the first degree and so is the vessel containing it.. But we must hold that [it was dirtied] by fluid24In the case of isolated spots of fluids one cannot say that the fluids merge; the rules of the Mishnah are reasonable if applied to this situation..” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah: They treated fluid in a finger-hole like fluid at the slaughtering place25Mishnah Idiut 8:4; Kelim 15:6. Even though water and blood are the essential agents of biblical impurity, water used at the slaughtering place in the Temple and blood spilled there are pure, i. e., impervious to impurity and do not act to prepare food to possible impurity.. As you are saying there that fluids of the slaughtering place are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place26Outside of the Temple they just are regular fluids subject to all their rules. Babli Pesaḥim 17a., [so here, fluids in a finger-hole are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place.] Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside {the Temple courtyards} become impure. But did we not state, fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside continue in their sanctity? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon explained it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. If they came out and returned27If they somehow re-entered the Temple domain while pure by outside standards, they regain their immunity from the rules of impurity.. If the upper fluid became impure and flowed down, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya. One said, at its place it is pure, if it flows down it is impure. The other one said, since it comes from purity it is pure28The slaughtering place is in the place of the Cohanim, the highest in the Temple domain. The question is the definition of the domain in which the fluids are exempt from the rules of impurity. In one opinion it only is the Cohanim’s courtyard, in the other it is the entire space inside the enclosure of the Temple, including the courtyards accessible to Israel men and women.. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: About fluids which became impure from solid food. But fluids impure from crawling things are impure29This is a new remark, about the Mishnah. The impurity discussed is of rabbinic nature, such as derivative impurity of foodstuffs; but biblical impurity, such as caused by the carcasses of crawling animals, is transmitted to vessels by biblical rules. Babli Pesaḥim 17b.. There, we have stated30Mishnah Kelim25:7.: “All vessels have back and interior, and they have finger-holes. Rebbi Tarphon says, concerning a large wooden trough31All vessels become impure, possibly by different rules, inside and out. But finger-holes apply only to heavy wooden troughs used to prepare dough.. Rebbi Aqiba says, concerning cups32The rules of finger-holes also apply to earthenware cups. The rules essentially state that finger-holes, being horizontal cavities, are rabbinic transmitters of impurity and therefore subject to rabbinic disregards of rabbinic rules.. Rebbi Meïr says, concerning impure and pure hands. Rebbi Yose says, they referred only to pure hands33Following R. Meïr, if his hands were impure and the back of the cup pure, handling the cup by finger-holes keeps the back of the cup pure. If his hands were pure and the back of the cup impure, handling the cup by finger-holes keeps the hands pure. Following R. Yose only the second case holds..” Following Rebbi Meïr, if his hands were impure and the back of the cup pure, fluid outside on the cup and he touches it in his finger-hole, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure34Since the finger-hole is a separate entity, for R. Meïr impurity of the back of the vessel is a separate affair not influenced by anything in the finger-hole, even if some of the fluid is in the finger-hole.. Just as the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place35Since it was stated that the fluid does not become impure in the finger-hole, is this a statement about the fluid or about the finger-hole? In the second case the fluid will be impure in the moment it flows out of the finger-hole.? Let us hear from the following. Pure fluids are on the ground. If an impure loaf touched them, it made them impure36Since any impure fluid is impure in the first degree, even if made impure by secondary impurity.. In which respect did it make impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a cup37The formulation excludes finger-holes; the statement was about the fluid.. But maybe fluid is on the hand and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the cup to make the hand impure38If the fluid is on the hand outside the finger-hole, if the back of the cup is impure and it touches at the outside of the finger-hole, will the hand become impure?? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If a pure loaf touched them, it became impure. It only says, a loaf; therefore not a hand39According to R. Meïr there cannot be connection for impurity between fingers in finger-holes and any other part of the cup.. And following Rebbi Yose, if his hands were pure but the back of the cup impure, there is fluid on his hand, and he holds in the finger-holes, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure40For R. Yose, the exemption of finger-holes only works to protect the fingers from impurity on the back of the cup.. Just as the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place41Same question as Note 35.? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If pure loaf touched them, it became impure. In which respect did it become impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a hand42Same answer, in cases relevant for R. Yose, as Note 39.. But maybe fluid is on the cup and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the hand to make the cup impure? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are in the finger-holes. If a cup whose back is pure touched its finger-holes it became impure43Contrary to the opinion of R. Meïr, R. Yose holds that impurity can be transmitted through finger-holes.. “He who carries “support” may carry heave but not sancta4A person may carry both the shoe of a sufferer from gonorrhea and heave if both of them are placed on wooden planks (impervious to impurity) and the carrier never touches shoe and heave.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, because of a happening. It happened to a person that his amphora sprung a leak and he plugged it with his sandal44Which was impure by “load” and made the contents of the amphora biblically impure. Babli 22b (end).. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he transgressed and carried it, it is pure. This follows what Rebbi Eleazar said: some say, he shall not carry; if he transgressed and carried it is impure. [But some say,] he shall not carry; if he transgressed and carried it is pure45Since these statements refer to Temple practice, not to biblical laws, they are not subject to discussion. Babli 23a.. Rebbi Ze`ira said in front of Rebbi Mana46R. Mana I. does this not imply that they made his body not like a sufferer from gonorrhea47Therefore one may answer a question raised earlier.? [If you would say, they made his body not like a sufferer from gonorrhea,] then if he transgressed and carried he would be impure. He answered him, explain it if it is connected to sancta8,If a Cohen happens to eat heave in the week in which he is eating sancta, he may not immerse vessels for heave together with those for sancta since they follow different rules and in this case it it obvious that for one and the same person the rules for sancta are more stringent.48This implies nothing in the general case.. “The action for sancta is different from that for heave in that for sancta one unties the strings and wipes the holes and then ties whereas for heave one may tie and then immerse.49Tosephta 3:6.” Eaters of heave are vigilant and they hollow50Before any use they meticulously clean the interior of any vessel used for heave. it but eaters of sancta are not vigilant7Heave as a countryside food is eaten daily by Cohanim but sancta only at the time of their service in the Temple, usually two weeks in a year, or by laity on pilgrimage. The eaters of heave may be expected to follow an exact procedure at all times. and do not hollow.
MISHNAH: Implements manufactured in purity need immersion for sancta but not for heave. A vessel combines its contents for sancta but not for heave51A vessel contains disjoint morsels of food. If one piece becomes impure, this in general has no influence of the other pieces since derivative impurity of food cannot make the vessel impure and even rabbinically the other pieces are two touchings distant from the impure piece. The only exception are sancta for which there exists a fourth degree of impurity. Therefore morsels of sancta in the same vessel as a second degree impure piece of food are disqualified even if they are all physically separated.. For sancta the fourth degree is disqualified and the third for heave52Chapter 2, Note 162.. For heave, if one of his hands became impure the other remains pure, but for sancta he immerses both. One hand makes the other impure for sancta but not for heave53Since the impurity of hands is rabbinic of the second degree, the prior argument applies.. HALAKHAH: It was stated54Tosephta Kelim Bava Batra 1:2–3; Babli 20a.: “It happened that a woman was weaving cloth in purity and came to Rebbi Ismael to ask him about it. She told him, I am sure that it did not become impure, only I did not concentrate to watch it. While he was interrogating her, she said to him, a menstruating woman came and helped me stretching the rope55If the menstruating woman alone had stretched the warp, it would certainly be impure because moved by a person whose impurity is from her own body. Since it was a joint effort, it is possible that the warp, and therefore the cloth, was impure, but it cannot be determined whether it is. In order to be sure it is pure it has to be immersed.. At that moment Rebbi Ismael said, great are the words of the Sages who said, ‘implements manufactured in purity need immersion for sancta but not for heave.’ Another happening: a woman was weaving a shawl in purity and came to Rebbi Ismael to ask him about it. She told him, I am sure that it did not become impure, only I did not concentrate to watch it. While he was interrogating him, she said to him, a thread broke and I tied it with my mouth56Chapter 2, Notes 231–232.. At that moment Rebbi Ismael said, great are the words of the Sages who said, ‘implements manufactured in purity need immersion for sancta but not for heave.’ ” 56Chapter 2, Notes 231–232. If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, up to here about sanctified Temple sancta. From here on, about profane food prepared in the purity of sacrifices57Mishnah 1 and the first statement of Mishnah 2 apply only to actual Temple sancta and therefore are inoperative after the destruction of the Temple. The later distinctions between sancta and heave also apply to profane food prepared in the purity of sancta.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is from Rebbi Aqiba’s testimony57Mishnah 1 and the first statement of Mishnah 2 apply only to actual Temple sancta and therefore are inoperative after the destruction of the Temple. The later distinctions between sancta and heave also apply to profane food prepared in the purity of sancta.. As we have stated there57Mishnah 1 and the first statement of Mishnah 2 apply only to actual Temple sancta and therefore are inoperative after the destruction of the Temple. The later distinctions between sancta and heave also apply to profane food prepared in the purity of sancta., “Rebbi Aqiba added that fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, part of which were touched by a Tevul Yom are all disqualified58This statement is implied by the statement of our Mishnah that vessels do combine for sancta. Therefore Mishnah 2 must have been formulated posterior to R. Aqiba..” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they knew that vessels of Servive do combine. About what comes he to testify? About the leftovers of flour-offerings that they do combine together. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Zamina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel59Since the leftovers of flour offerings have to be eaten by priests, they have to be taken from the vessel in which they were presented to the altar. Since the vessel is not needed after presentation and burning of a fistful on the altar, one might think that then the vessel acts like a profane vessel and does not imply disqualification of the entire content composed of disjoint pieces if one piece became disqualified. As long as the vessel is actually used it transmits disqualification. Babli 23b.. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: they knew that vessels of Service do combine. About what comes he to testify? About fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals60These are not foods and not subject to the rules of impurity of foodstuffs up to the fourth degree.. One understands fine flour, and incense, and frankincense. Coals61They should be impervious to impurity.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it about coals on the Day of Atonement which he has to carry inside in the vessel which he used to scoop up62The coals which the High Priest on the Day of Atonement has to scoop up with a fire-pan and carry into the holiest of holies with the incense (Lev. 16:12). These are the only coals which become disqualified if outside a dedicated Vessel of Service.. But [not]63Corrector’s addition, making explicit the text’s meaning. about every day’s coals. As we have stated there64Mishnah Tamid 5:5., “If a qab of coals were dispersed, one sweeps them into the water canal, but on the Sabbath one covers it with a wine-cooler65Greek ψυκτήρ, a big metal vessel.. Rebbi Mattania said, do fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, need a minimum volume in this respect? Not because they have to be in their vessel? Here also because they have to be in their vessel66He holds that the Mishnah in Idiut applies to all coals removed from the altar. The rule is that the burned-out charcoal remainders have to be removed in dedicated fire-pans. Even if the later are spilled and swiped into the water canal crossing the inner courtyard, they were removed in a dedicated vessel, and in this case the vessel combines all its contents. The same holds for a large private flour offering, not subject to the amounts prescribed for public offerings, and which might be presented in two or more vessels. In that case, each vessel separately transmits disqualification from a part of its contents to all of it.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels67The regular discipline of flour offerings is that flour and oil are mixed in one sanctified vessel, then the priest takes a fistful, deposits it into a second vessel which he carries to the altar and empties into the flames. Since in any case a second vessel is involved, may the offering be brought from the start in two vessels, and the fistful taken from one and deposited into a third permits the contents of both original vessels to be consumed by the priests?? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel59Since the leftovers of flour offerings have to be eaten by priests, they have to be taken from the vessel in which they were presented to the altar. Since the vessel is not needed after presentation and burning of a fistful on the altar, one might think that then the vessel acts like a profane vessel and does not imply disqualification of the entire content composed of disjoint pieces if one piece became disqualified. As long as the vessel is actually used it transmits disqualification. Babli 23b.. Here also because they have to be in their vessel68If the offering from the start is in two separate vessels, where is the one vessel which combines the contents such that if part becomes disqualified everything is disqualified? As before the answer is that since no offering may be presented without being in a vessel, that vessel is a necessity of the service and the multitude of original vessels is irrelevant.. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”69The previous argument is extended from flour offering to incense, which at least for the shewbreads always is in multiple containers, and the other offerings.. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl70The scribe’s text is the correct one, confirmed by the Babli (Menaḥot 7a,24a/b). The corrector’s change is erroneous., if one became impure did the other become impure71While an argument may be made that if part of a flour-offering becomes disqualified the whole becomes disqualified, does the argument extend to actual impurity (or order <4), so that the contents of a vessel can cause impurity or disqualification to anything it comes in contact with, without ever having been touched by anything impure?? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump72From one vessel to another with which it is not in contact.? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other73Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question.? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there74Mishnah Menaḥot 3:3., “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately75If the materials of the two offerings are recognizable as distinct. they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other76One has to say that the statement that the vessel combines is a biblical one; therefore on the one hand the vessel transmits disqualification from one piece to a disjoint one, and on the other hand permits to take a fistful from the offering although certainly parts of the offering are mixed with another, which without the combining action of the vessel would disqualify.? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other77Of a flour-offering presented in two or more vessels., if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup77Of a flour-offering presented in two or more vessels.? Which makes its contents one.78Sifry Num. 49, Babli 23b. The reference is to the offerings of the heads of tribes for the inauguration of the Tabernacle (Num.7:14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44, 50, 56, 62, 68, 74, 80). It would have been sufficient to state that each of them brought “a cup full of incense”. The emphasis 12 times on “one cup full of incense” is explained by that the cup makes the offering an indivisible entity.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it79He denies that impurity may be transferred by action at a distance.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Does a dry piece of flour-offering start a count80A flour offering in general needs to be mixed with oil. As noted later, food becomes susceptible to impurity only by contact with water or one of the fluids compared to water in a biblical verse, including olive oil. This contact is called “preparation for impurity”, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 141. The question now is whether flour never in contact with a fluid, which becomes disqualified by being in a combining vessel, also becomes impure to count derivative impurity of degrees 1,2,3,4 or not. Babli Ḥulin 36a.? Rebbi Eleazar objected: Is it not written81Lev. 11:34., of all foodstuff which is edible on which comes water is susceptible to impurity. Any whose impurity is caused by water starts a count, nothing whose impurity is not caused by water starts a count. Rebbi Yose objected: Is there not a carcass of a kosher bird which causes impurity of foodstuff without preparation and without impurity, because it ends up causing severe impurity82The meat of a kosher bird which was not slaughtered once it is in the mouth makes not only the eater but also his garments causes of original biblical impurity. The garments cause impurity to anything potentially susceptible to impurity, without “preparation.”? What about this? Of all foodstuff which is edible, any whose impurity is caused by the category of edibles83Even if the particular item is not kosher to eat. starts a count, nothing whose impurity is not caused by edibles the category of starts a count. Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave84Babli Ḥulin 35a. Since the third degree of impurity disqualifies but does not induce impurity for heave, the person is permitted in principle to touch heave but not to eat it.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there85Mishnah Taharot 2:2., “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.86R. Eliezer holds that a person eating impure food subject to higher orders of derivative impurity becomes impure in the same degree as his food, whereas R. Joshua holds that impure food of the first two degrees make the body impure in the second degree, and that third degree impurity (disqualification) for heave equals second degree (impurity) for sancta. Since in general we are following R. Joshua against R. Eliezer, it would be astonishing to find an anonymous Mishnah following R. Eliezer against R. Joshua. Cf. Babli Ḥulin 33b.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave87While in theory he could touch heave without bad effects, since touching could lead to eating we tell him to stay away from heave in all respects. This is not a biblical rule.. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following88Mishnah Parah 11:5.: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.89The Mishnah states that anybody needing immersion in water for rabbinic impurity may without immersion eat profane food and Second Tithe according to R. Meïr, but the majority forbids him Second Tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe90There should not have been any question since the problem already was solved in a Mishnah known to all.. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta91A quote from Halakhah 3, Note 136. The reference is to a deep mourner who is obligated to see to the burial of a close relative and is forbidden any sacral act. As stated here, it implies that the person eating disqualified sancta is forbidden any sacral act.. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]92Mishnah Ḥulin 2:5.: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter93For the majority, slaughtered meat is prepared for impurity (Note 80) either by the blood spilled in the act of slaughter or by cutting the animal into pieces, or by later contact with water. Since meat eaten otherwise than raw must be kashered in water, the Mishnah implies that meat not prepared by blood may be eaten raw with unwashed hands and remain untouched by impurity..” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua86R. Eliezer holds that a person eating impure food subject to higher orders of derivative impurity becomes impure in the same degree as his food, whereas R. Joshua holds that impure food of the first two degrees make the body impure in the second degree, and that third degree impurity (disqualification) for heave equals second degree (impurity) for sancta. Since in general we are following R. Joshua against R. Eliezer, it would be astonishing to find an anonymous Mishnah following R. Eliezer against R. Joshua. Cf. Babli Ḥulin 33b.. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta86R. Eliezer holds that a person eating impure food subject to higher orders of derivative impurity becomes impure in the same degree as his food, whereas R. Joshua holds that impure food of the first two degrees make the body impure in the second degree, and that third degree impurity (disqualification) for heave equals second degree (impurity) for sancta. Since in general we are following R. Joshua against R. Eliezer, it would be astonishing to find an anonymous Mishnah following R. Eliezer against R. Joshua. Cf. Babli Ḥulin 33b.? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He94Rebbi in the baraita. tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.95Mishnah Taharot 1:9. Bread baked to accompany sancta is prepared for impurity both by the water used in making the dough and by the fact that it is used in the Temple. If the bread is leavened, as required for thanksgiving offerings (Lev. 7:13), and some moisture remains in bubbles inside the loaves, it is considered as if outside. If the loaf is touched by disqualified (4th order impure) food, the moisture becomes impure in the first degree and the loaf actually impure; while totally dry food is not impacted by the touch of disqualified food.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid96“Fluid by his pronouncement” is profane food intentionally prepared by the standards of sancta. “Sanctified fluid” is fluid actually used in the Temple.? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there97In Mishnah Parah Chapter 10., one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah85Mishnah Taharot 2:2. which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta98The Mishnah text is R. Joshua’s. Since he formulates it for profane food prepared in the standards of heave, it is clear that he excludes profane food prepared in the standards of sancta; his statement requires equal treatment for actual sancta, possible only in the Temple, and food prepared in the standards of sancta, possible everywhere in the Holy Land at all times (subject to the availability of ashes of the Red Cow.). From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta99As stated in the Mishnah there.. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta100But nothing implies that this also is valid for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta.. 101This is copied from Soṭah 5:2 (Notes 93–106, ס). In this paragraph, the corrector’s changes are copied from Soṭah and have to be accepted.“Rebbi Yose stated, from where that the fourth degree is disqualified in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation102If a person is healed whose body was an original source of impurity, he needs immersion in water to be pure and also a ceremony of expiation to be admitted to the Sanctuary and sacrifices (for the person afflicted with skin disease, Lev, 14:32; for the persons healed from genital discharges 15:14–15, 29–30 for the woman after childbirth 12:6–8). After immersion in water, the person is totally pure (after the following sundown) at any place other than the Sanctuary. is not disqualified for heave103Tosephta 3:17. but disqualified for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree104In the text here “fourth order,” not corrected by the corrector. The translated text here is from Soṭah. [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disqualify for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse105Mishnah Sotah 5:3 following R. Aqiba. and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a Tevul Yom106Cf. Chapter 1, Note 168. is a counter-example, because he disqualifies in the case of heave but does not disqualify in the case of sanctified food107Tosephta 3:16; Sifra Emor Pereq 4(8). It is proved that sacra are not in all respects more restrictive than heave. It is remarkable that the Babli does not argue against the thesis of R. Yose since it clearly violates the rule “it is enough if inference drawn from an argument be equal to the premise ” (Babli Bava qamma 25a). According to this rule, a passive impurity in the minor cannot become an active one in the major. The Yerushalmi knows no such rule; it needs the counter-example of R. Joḥanan. The difference between the Talmudim is that for the Yerushalmi, de minore ad majus is a rhetorical device but for the Babli it is part of a meta-logical system (cf. the author’s Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966 pp. 171–196.). Rebbi Ḥananiah108In Sotah: R. Ḥiyya, the only possible reading since R. Ḥananiah was a teacher, not a student, of R. Joḥanan. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says impure, impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says it will be impure, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse109Lev. 7:19; Sifra Ṣaw Parasha 9. A similar interpretation is given as an additional baraita in the Babli 24a, Pesaḥim 18b/19a, Sotah 29b.: Any meat which would touch, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; anything impure, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; shall not be eaten, the endstage of impurity may not be eaten. So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile110A dead reptile from the kinds enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30.. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile111Vessels can become impure only from original impurity (a “father” or “grand-father” of impurity, never from derivative impurity.) There is no verse which would indicate otherwise (but in Pesaḥim 1:7, R. Ismael is quoted to the effect that Lev. 11:33 also applies to vessels. It may be a veiled reference to the argument presented here.) to defile solid food, is it not logical that solid food itself which became impure by a reptile should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food. So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: 112Lev. 7:19.Any meat which would touch anything impure, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, shall not be eaten, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a tevul yom who is not disqualified for profane food disqualifies heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disqualifies heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument113It is a principle accepted in both Talmudim that at least for any rules of sacrifices and connected matters, most hermeneutical rules cannot be used one after the other; cf. Yebamot 8:1, Note 19. A detailed table of legal and illegal combinations, derived from Babli Zevaḥim Chapter 5, appears in the author’s paper Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–164.? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices114Tosephta 3:8. “Practice” here corresponds to “Practice of Moses from Mount Sinai” in the Babli, generally accepted practice whose roots can no longer be ascertained. The status of such practice is more than rabbinic and less than biblical.. “For heave, if one of his hands became impure the other remains pure.” “To make sancta impure, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, to disqualify sancta.115Tosephta 3:10; Babli 24a. The text of the Tosephta is: A person who immerses one hand and prepares food in purity, any food prepared until he immerses the other hand is impure since one hand makes the other impure to make sancta impure …” The Tosephta implies that if one hand is impure, in preparation of sancta the other is impure in the second degree for Rebbi, in the third for R. Yose ben R. Jehudah.” How? Following Rebbi Joshua? As we have stated there116Mishnah Yadaim 3:2., “anything which disqualifies heave makes hands impure in the second degree, and one hand makes the other one impure, the words of Rebbi Joshua.” And Rebbi Joshua says more than Rebbi, since what Rebbi said refers to sancta, but Rebbi Joshua refers to heave117Therefore the Mishnah here which treats heave (disqualified by second degree impurity) more leniently than sancta (disqualified by third degree impurity) cannot be R. Joshua’s.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they only stated “the other”, not a stranger’s118This refers to the statement that for sancta both hands have to be washed since otherwise one impure hand causes the other hand also to be impure. The problem is whether the other hand, which was not exposed to impurity, is impure in the second degree as impure hand, or of the third as derivative of second degree impurity. R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that it is impure in the third degree, R. Joḥanan that it is second.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even a stranger’s. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even a loaf. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan retracted this; when he said so it was before he changed his mind. He only said to make a loaf impure, because of “anything which disqualifies heave makes hands impure in the second degree.” Therefore to make a loaf impure everybody agrees that it does not make impure119For anything but the other hand of the person one follows the rule that induced impurity is one degree more than the inducing one. Therefore the second hand may disqualify a loaf of sancta but cannot possibly make it impure., since “no second degree creates second degree.116Mishnah Yadaim 3:2.”
MISHNAH: One eats dry food120Which somehow never was wetted and therefore is impervious to impurity. But all food eaten with sacrifices is subject to the rules of impurity. with dirty hands121Which are second degree impure and therefore have no influence on profane food, only on heave and sancta. with heave but not with sancta. The deep mourner122Who somehow is not impure in the impurity of the dead. and one who lacks expiation need immersion for sancta but not for heave123They are forbidden sancta but permitted heave. The immersion before their disability was removed is not counted.. HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Antigonos said, do dry foods exist for sancta124Anything used with sacrificial food is susceptible to impurity; its use makes it susceptible.? He impales the flat piece125Usually this word denotes a flat pitta bread. But here this cannot be the intended meaning since any kind of bread is made from dough containing water and therefore automatically susceptible to impurity. The reference is to a piece of food which never was in contact with any external fluid. on the spit126Which as a flat wooden implement is impervious to impurity. and eats with it an olive-sized bit of meat of heave but not of sancta.127Tosephta 3:12; Babli 24b.” There we have stated128Mishnah Kelim 8:10.: “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, …129R. Meïr declares the fig cake impure but R. Jehudah pure. They disagree about the status of the saliva of a pure person. As noted later, saliva in the mouth does not prepare for impurity; otherwise a person never could eat in purity. R. Jehudah holds that saliva in the mouth is immune from impurity; for him the problem does not exist. R. Meïr holds that saliva is a fluid subject to the rules of impurity since the spittle of a person sick with gonorrhea is a source of biblical impurity. Since unwashed hands are impure of second degree, the saliva in his mouth makes them impure in the first degree. If then he again touches the fig cake it will be impure in the second degree.” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah128Mishnah Kelim 8:10. disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure.130The stove is made of clay. Biblically clay vessels become impure if and only if impurity is placed into its concavity with or without touching. The person himself would make the stove impure only if most of his body were inside but since the food in his head is moist and impure, putting his head inside makes the stove biblically impure. If therefore a pure person with food in his mouth puts his head inside the stove, the food becomes impure and makes the person impure.” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva131Since as explained in Note 129, saliva in a pure person’s body is pure and does not prepare for impurity.! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food120Which somehow never was wetted and therefore is impervious to impurity. But all food eaten with sacrifices is subject to the rules of impurity. with dirty hands121Which are second degree impure and therefore have no influence on profane food, only on heave and sancta. with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws132He throws the food into his mouth so it is swallowed immediately without being wetted.. If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget but eaters of sancta are not vigilant7Heave as a countryside food is eaten daily by Cohanim but sancta only at the time of their service in the Temple, usually two weeks in a year, or by laity on pilgrimage. The eaters of heave may be expected to follow an exact procedure at all times. and he forgets. There we have stated133Mishnah Zevaḥim 12:1.: “The deep mourner touches but may not sacrifice nor take his part of meat in the evening.134Usually the deep mourner Cohen, the mourner before the burial, will be impure in the impurity of the dead since it is obligatory for a Cohen to defile himself for the burial of a close relative (Lev.. 21:1–4). In case he is prevented from participating in the burial (usually by being far from the place of burial) and is pure, he still is forbidden before the burial to participate in any religious rite. If he is in Jerusalem and pure, at the time of distribution of the sacrificial meat he is barred from participating even if a short time later he will be able to resume all his functions.” There you are saying, he may touch. But here you are saying, he is forbidden to touch. Rebbi Yannai said, here when he put his mind to other things, but there if he did not put his mind to other things135The Mishnah in Zevaḥim permits the deep mourner to touch sancta, but the Mishnah here requires him to immerse himself, which implies that after immersion he still is prohibited touching sancta until sundown. This glaring contradiction can be explained in that the Mishnah here prescribes immersion for a person not directly involved in the Temple service. Babli Zevaḥim 99a.. Rebbi Yose asked, if he put his mind to other things should he not also be forbidden heave? How is this? As Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: They treated him like one who ate food which was of fourth degree for sancta136Which is disqualified for sancta but not for heave. “He” is the deep mourner not impure in the impurity of the dead.. This implies that one who ate food which was of fourth degree for sancta is forbidden to eat but permitted to touch. And here he is forbidden to eat but permitted to touch. There we have stated137Mishnah Niddah 10:7.: “For the House of Shammai are saying, she needs immersion at the end, but the House of Hillel are saying, she does not need immersion at the end.138The Mishnah explains the rules of the purity of women after childbirth. The verse (Lev. 12:2–6) declares her impure in the impurity of menstruation for 7 days after the birth of a son and 14 days after the birth of a daughter. At the end of this period she has to immerse herself. For the following 33 days after the birth of a son and 66 after that of a girl she is impervious to impurity from genital bleeding. She still is barred from the Temple and sancta until she has brought her sacrifice of expiation. The Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree on whether after the expiration of her days of purity (i. e., when she again becomes susceptible to impurity) she needs another immersion.” Where do we hold? If about eating heave it is difficult for the House of Shammai; if about eating sancta it is difficult for the House of Hillel139In the Mishnah it is stated as unanimous opinion that the deep mourner needs immersion for sancta but not for heave.. Does she not lack expiation? Do people lacking expiation not need immersion for sancta140Since the verse requires a sacrifice of expiation at the end of her period of purity it should be clear that she is lacking expiation and following the Mishnah here needs immersion for sancta but not for heave.? If you are saying that there one holds about heave, regarding what we have stated here the first part is everybody’s opinion and the second part in dispute. If you are saying that here one holds about heave, regarding what we have stated there the first part is everybody’s opinion and the second part in dispute141In the first case, the statement here about immersion is the House of Hillel’s. In the second case, the reference to the first part is Mishnah Niddah 10:6.. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said before Rebbi Mana, we are dealing with heave. There the reason of the House of Shammai is because of the unlearned142Greek ’ιδιώτης., that they should not say, we saw a woman losing blood and eating heave143There is no reason in the rules of impurity preventing a woman with genital bleeding to eat heave in the days of her purity. They forbid it only so people should not draw the wrong inferences, not knowing that she is impervious to this kind of impurity..
MISHNAH: One is more restrictive for heave in that in Judea one is trustworthy about purity of wine and oil the entire year144This is a rule for Temple times since, as explained in the Halakhah, wine and oil for use in the Temple had to be brought from Judea. Therefore all farmers in Judea were careful in preserving the purity of oil and wine. but about heave {only} at the time of grape and olive harvest145Since every farmer wanted to produce his heave in purity.. If the time of grape and olive harvest is passed and he146The vulgar, negligent in matters of purity. brought him147The Cohen, observing the rules of purity. a barrel of heave wine he should not accept it but let it stay until the next grape harvest. Only if he said, I put into it a quartarius of sanctum he is trustworthy148Since the Temple wine makes him observant of the rules of purity.. One is trustworthy about wine and oil barrels used for heave149Which in Ex. 22:28 is called דמע . at the time of grape and olive harvest and sixty days preceding the grape harvest. HALAKHAH: “One is more restrictive for heave in that in Judea one is trustworthy.” Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah: Because a strip of Samaritans interrupts150This statement must be late Amoraic, after the exclusion of Samaritans from Judaism according to its rabbinic interpretation (cf. Avodah zarah 3:1 Note 27). The correct version is Rashi’s reading in the Babli: “A strip of Gentile territory”, which is impure in the general impurity of lands outside Jewish Palestine; cf. Dikduke Sopherim Ḥagigah 25a Note 8.. But did we not state151Mishnah Menaḥot 8:3., “the second best is Regev in Transjordan”? Without this would not a strip of Samaritans interrupt150This statement must be late Amoraic, after the exclusion of Samaritans from Judaism according to its rabbinic interpretation (cf. Avodah zarah 3:1 Note 27). The correct version is Rashi’s reading in the Babli: “A strip of Gentile territory”, which is impure in the general impurity of lands outside Jewish Palestine; cf. Dikduke Sopherim Ḥagigah 25a Note 8.? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it if he brings whole olives152Which never were wetted and therefore are impervious to impurity. and pounds them there. And in Judea one is trustworthy about the wine but not about the flasks. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Southerner who said, I brought this from Galilee is trustworthy; a Galilean who said, I brought this from Judea is not trustworthy153In both cases the heave is impure unless under control of a trustworthy person.. Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, only heave prepared in the purity of sancta154Since the Mishnah connects purity of food prepared by the non-observant to the preparation of oil and wine for the Temple, it seems rational to restrict the entire Mishnah to food prepared to Temple standards.. Therefore not in its own. Rebbi Yose said, even if prepared in its own155If R. Jeremiah were correct, one could not say that the standards of heave are more strict than those of sancta.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose156Mishnah Taharot 10:3. The Mishnah prescribes that in preparation of the olive and grape harvests one requests the workers, presumed to be vulgars who do not observe the rules of purity in their daily lives, to immerse themselves in a miqweh. For R. Meïr it is enough if the employer leads them to the miqweh, but R. Yose the Tanna requires that he observe their immersion. This clearly means that the workers in olive or wine presses are not presumed to follow strictly the rules of purity.: “He has to watch them until they immersed themselves.” Explain it: not in the time of the olive harvest. Could you say not in the time of the grape harvest157Olives which remain intact being harvested may be stored and later be pressed but grapes must be pressed immediately after being harvested. Therefore the Mishnah in Taharot which mentions wine-press workers must refer to the time of the grape harvest.? Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, if food prepared in purity touched it before three people used it, at the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity remains pure, not at the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity becomes impure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure158Since clay utensils cannot be purified other than being broken, it does not make any sense to consider clay olive and grape presses pure one day and impure the next. Mishnaiot Hagigah 3:4 and Taharot10:3 are incompatible.? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it before the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity remains pure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is impure and then pure? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it when it was full the food prepared in purity remains pure. If he cleared it, the food prepared in purity becomes impure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it when it was empty the food prepared in purity becomes impure. If he filled it, the food prepared in purity remains pure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure? Are not all these of the same kind159There is no formulation able to bridge the conceptual contradictions between the two Mishnaiot.? 160A somewhat fuller version of a text from Eruvin9:4 (Notes 60–69). The implication here is that the Mishnah in Taharot presents a rabbinic restriction. Since this is not a matter of logic, there is no contradiction in the basic legal foundations of both Mishnaiot. Rebbi Joḥanan said, costos, and hollowed squash, and alley, and convert, and vulgar, are restrictive. Costos as we have stated161Mishnah Uqeṣin 3:5. Costos,-i, f., Greek κόστος, an Oriental aromatic plant., “costos, and cardamon, and important spices,162The spices mentioned are not food but may be used as additives in the preparation of food. and benjamin, and asa foetida, and peppers, and safflower cakes, may be bought with tithe money163Money dedicated as Second Tithe which may be spent only on pure food or drink in Jerusalem. but do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, if they may be bought with tithe money they become impure by impurity of foodstuff, and if they do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff they may not be bought with tithe money.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive164The Mishnah is stated as an argument, not as a statement, to permit in practice to accept each argument even though this results in two mutually contradictory restrictions.: they become impure by impurity of foodstuff and may not be bought with tithe money. Hollowed squash as we have stated165Mishnah Parah 5:3. “Sanctify” means to put some of the ashes of the Red Cow into the water to use it to purify from the impurity of the dead. This water has to be taken from flowing water (Num. 19:17). Since the squash, used as a pot, will absorb of this water, immediately after it has been immersed in flowing water it might be used in the ceremony, but later the water retained in its walls will invalidate new water drawn by the hollowed squash. In the Mishnah, R. Joshua argues that if at the start the squash was acceptable it always should be acceptable, if later it is not acceptable neither should it be at the start (since the point in time when it becomes unacceptable is not well defined.): “A hollowed squash which one immersed in water is suitable for sanctification, and one uses it to sanctify until it becomes impure. Once it is impure one may not use it to sanctify. Rebbi Joshua says, if one uses it to sanctify at the start then also at the end. If one does not use at the end then also not at the start.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, one may not sanctify either at the beginning or at the end. Alley, as we have stated there166Eruvin Mishnah 9:4. If the beam was in place at the start of the Sabbath, an argument is made that in the alley it closes one may continue to carry on this Sabbath., “or an alley whose beam was removed, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, it is forbidden both on this Sabbath and the coming Sabbath. Proselyte, as it was stated: If a proselyte converted while he had wines, and said, it is clear to me that no libations were made from it, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others167As wine prepared by a Non-Jew, cf. Avodah zarah, Chapters 2–5., by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others. Vulgar, as it was stated: If a vulgar person who was inducted as a fellow168A fellow is a person observing all rules of purity in the absence of a Temple, cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. has food made in purity and he said, it is clear to me that it was prepared in purity, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others. Rebbi Yannai said, the youngsters169The sons of R. Ḥiyya the Elder, Ḥizqiah and Jehudah. Since in the absence of a Temple no ruling is required about the meaning of the Mishnah, none is given. said, only heave prepared in the purity of sancta154Since the Mishnah connects purity of food prepared by the non-observant to the preparation of oil and wine for the Temple, it seems rational to restrict the entire Mishnah to food prepared to Temple standards.. Therefore not in its own. But I am saying, even if prepared in its own155If R. Jeremiah were correct, one could not say that the standards of heave are more strict than those of sancta.. Rebbi Yose follows Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Jeremiah the youngsters. “Only if he said, I put into it a quartarius of sanctum he is trustworthy148Since the Temple wine makes him observant of the rules of purity..” Since he is trustworthy for the sanctum he is trustworthy for heave170Babli 25b.. “One is trustworthy about wine and oil barrels used for heave.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, those in which one heats heave.
MISHNAH: From Modiin and closer one is trustworthy about clay vessels, but from Modiin and outside one is not trustworthy. How is this? The potter171Who usually is a vulgar, not trustworthy in matters of purity. who sells pots172The kinds used to cook sancta in. The problem with clay vessels is that they cannot be made pure once they are impure. Now the remainders of meat absorbed in the porous walls of clay vessels become forbidden and impure leftover meat after the time allotted to its consumption and therefore must be broken (Lev.6:21). If only fellows could supply clay vessels for sancta, everybody would have to use expensive metal vessels., if he is inside from Modiin then the potter, the pots, and the buyers173The buyer who affirms that he bought the pot at a place closer to Jerusalem than Modiin., are trustworthy. If he left he is not trustworthy174Even about pots he sold at a place closer to Jerusalem than Modiin.. HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is about small clay vessels. The Mishnah implies this: “the potter, the pots, and the buyers.” And are pots not small clay vessels175Vessels of daily use, not large vats. Babli 26a.? If food prepared in purity touched it, from Modiin and closer the fluid made the vessel impure176While the vulgar is to be believed if near Jerusalem he stated that a clay vessel was pure, this refers only to empty vessels. If the vessel contains food, according to R. Joḥanan one says that since he is trustworthy about the vessel he also is trustworthy for its contents. This is denied by R. Simeon ben Laqish; therefore the statement under consideration is R. Simeon ben Laqish’s, not accepted by R. Joḥanan. The text mentions fluid because impure fluids always are impure in the first degree and make clay vessels impure in their interior.. If it was filled with water, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is trustworthy about the vessel but not trustworthy about the fluid. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is trustworthy about both. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Only if he said, I put into it a quartarius of sanctum he is trustworthy148Since the Temple wine makes him observant of the rules of purity..” Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it about one who said, I separated it when I was fellow177The vulgar is not trusted if he affirms that the food was prepared under the supervision of a fellow.. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, there is no fellowship for water178He holds that even on a holiday, on which all of Israel are considered fellows, no vulgar is trustworthy to testify about water..
MISHNAH: Tax collectors179Vulgar Jews entering the house of a fellow. who entered a house, and also tax collectors who returned implements180, are trustworthy if they say “we did not touch”. And in Jerusalem they181Every Jew. are trustworthy about sancta, and on holidays also about heave. HALAKHAH: “If tax collectors entered a house, the house is impure. If they are accompanied by a Gentile they are trustworthy to say, we entered but we did not touch.182Mishnah Taharot 7:6. Tosephta Taharot 8:5 explains that even though the Gentile is no formal witness, the tax collectors fear to lie in the presence of people who know better.” One may explain this by two explanations. They are trustworthy to say, we entered but we did not touch if witnesses know of it183Probably this should be read as “no witnesses know of it.” In this case it would be an application of the principle, “the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits.” If no witness knows that he entered, the house would be impure only by his testimony. But if one believes him in this one also must believe him that he did not touch and therefore the house is pure.. And in Jerusalem they are trustworthy about sancta even if witnesses know of it. One may explain by another explanation: They are trustworthy to say, we entered but we did not touch. This is necessary {to be stated} even if witnesses know of it. And in Jerusalem they are trustworthy about sancta even if witnesses know of it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Jerusalem, built like a city which combines in fellowship184Ps. 122:3. The Babli 26a quotes another verse., the city which confers fellowship on all of Israel185All of Israel are presumed to strictly observe all rules of purity.. Then even on all other days of the year? Rebbi Ze`ira said, in the time when the tribes ascended186Ps. 122:4, the holidays of pilgrimage..
MISHNAH: If one187A fellow grocer selling wine or a fellow baker selling dough to vulgars on the holiday. On the holiday itself the touch of the vulgar does not make impure. For R. Jehudah therefore at the end of the holiday everything is pure but for the Sages the impurity only is suspended during the holiday but re-appears after the holiday if the remainders of wine or dough are offered for sale. opens a barrel, or one starts to sell his dough, on the holiday, Rebbi Jehudah says, he may finish, but the Sages say, he may not finish. After the holiday one proclaims the purity of the courtyard188One alerts the Cohanim and Levites that following the Sages, all utensils which were used during the holiday must be purified by immersion in a miqweh after the holiday.. If the holiday was over on a Friday one did not go over it because of the honor of the Sabbath189So not to interfere with the preparations for the Sabbath.. Rebbi Jehudah says, also not if the holiday was over on Thursday since the priests are not free190On the holiday an enormous amount of ashes collected on the altar which has to be removed on the first day after the end of the holiday. There would be no manpower for the purifying of the courtyards.. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted its end because of its beginning. Since if you would tell him that he may not finish he would not open191If the grocer is not sure that he may sell the entire contents of a new barrel, nobody would expect him to supply wine or oil towards the end of the holiday.. Let him not open! Then he diminishes the enjoyment of the holiday. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they disagree? About a wine barrel. But about an oil barrel everybody agrees that he does not finish. What does he do? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, he pours it out. Bar Qappara stated, he breaks it. However Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated, he leaves it for the next holiday192R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul is a contemporary of R. Ḥiyya and Bar Qappara. His statement is the only one agreeing with R. Joḥanan’s statement since oil in contrast to wine may be kept in open barrels for a greater amount of time. Therefore his statement must be practice. R. Ḥiyya’s statement seems impractical since he eliminates the now impure oil but retains the impure barrel, whereas Bar Qappara sees to it that the barrel is purified by breaking it.. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If a holiday falls on a Friday, one eats making Sabbath after the holiday like the holiday193The reference is to the last day of a holiday. If that day is a Friday, on the following Sabbath by necessity one eats the food of the holiday. Therefore on this Sabbath the vulgar still must be considered as a fellow and his touch does not cause impurity.. Rebbi Ze`ira said, a baraita states this: The eve of Passover is like Passover194Since the Pesaḥ sacrifice on the 14th of Nisan follows holiday rules., the day of slaughter195The day following the one-day festival of Pentecost, when the pilgrims bring all sacrifices which cannot be brought on the holiday itself. Therefore the day must have the status of the holiday itself to allow full participation of all Jews. is like Pentecost. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, we also stated more than this: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also not if the holiday was over on Thursday since the priests are not free196For R. Jehudah the Friday following a holiday of Thursday always has the status of the holiday which by the argument of Note 193 implies that the following Sabbath also has the same status..”
MISHNAH: How does one proclaim the purity of the courtyard188One alerts the Cohanim and Levites that following the Sages, all utensils which were used during the holiday must be purified by immersion in a miqweh after the holiday.? One immerses all vessels in the Temple197After the end of the holiday. The Mishnah in the Babli makes it clear that the purification is because of the impurity of the vulgar which only was suspended, not eliminated during the holiday. Since the Mishnah in the printed Yerushalmi is not from the ms. on which the text of the Halakhah is based, one cannot infer too much from differences in the text of the Mishnah. However, since the Halakhah strictly follows the text of the Mishnah here and its first paragraph makes it clear that the reason for the purification is that one suspects that in the throng of holiday traffic a vessel might have become impure by biblical standards it is clear that the Yerushalmi does not accept the argument of the Babli. This supports the thesis that the picture of relations between Pharisees and non-Pharisees given in the Babli cannot be accepted as historical fact; cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay.. There were seconds and thirds, that in case the first ones became impure one would bring the seconds in their place. All vessels in the Temple need immersion except the golden altar and the copper altar since they are like soil198And therefore not susceptible to impurity., the words of Rebbi Eliezer, but the Sages are saying, because they are plated199Therefore one never touches the altar itself but only the cover which cannot transmit impurity to the altar.. HALAKHAH: Do vessels need immersion? Rebbi Abba said, I am saying that possibly one of the vessels there was not sprinkled upon200While the expression “sprinkled upon” refers to water with the ashes of the Red Cow needed to purify the impurity of the dead, clearly here it cannot refer to a procedure that extends for a week but is taken as general expression for purifying biblical impurity. However, if the immersion is for biblical impurity, the vessel returns to a status of purity only after the following sundown. Then the question arises, how was the Temple service performed for the remainder of the day of immersion if there were no pure vessels available? The answer is given in the Mishnah, that there were reserve vessels available which had not been used during the holiday.. Then should we not suspect all of them201The answer given in the preceding Note seems to be invalid since one refers to pre-existing biblical impurity. Then the second and third vessels should also be immersed and not only after a holiday but every day of the year. While the second objection may answered that daily immersion clearly is impractical, the first objection remains unanswered.? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that there was one of the Cohanim who left to speak with a woman about her nest and a drop of spittle fell on his clothing from her mouth and made him impure202A woman after childbirth or after an extended period of menstrual impurity regains her right to participate in sacra only by a sacrifice of a couple of birds, a “nest”. These sacrifices have to be brought after the woman was purified by immersion in a way which shields the Cohanim (Mishnah Šeqalim 6:8), here one refers to a Cohen who counsels a woman still impure as zavah, whose body fluids are primary sources of biblical impurities, on the ways of purification.. Then should we not suspect all of them? Explain it if it became impure by fluids of uncertain status203Which are impure in the first degree by rabbinical convention only. Then it is reasonable to restrict the general immersion to holidays since at all other days precautions can be taken that such a case does not occur in the Temple.. There we have stated204Mishnah Taharot4:9. The Mishnah seems to imply that the case envisaged by R. Abun bar Ḥiyya cannot occur since possible rabbinic impurity does not cause certain impurity of implements known to be pure.: “Fluids of uncertain status, to become impure they are impure, to make impure they are pure205Tosephta 3:35..” There about heave, here about sancta. One is restrictive for sancta. It was stated205Tosephta 3:35.: “If the table became impure one immerses it at its time, even on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, immediately.”206The table in the Sanctuary is movable, therefore it is an implement and subject to impurity, e. g., by contact with a dead reptile. In the case of biblical impurity it should be impossible to return it to its place before sundown; this is R. Meïr’s position. The Sages require that it be returned immediately, as soon as it is no longer impure even if it is not yet pure, since the verse requires that the shew-bread be “always” on the table, i. e., every day and certainly at sundown and sunrise. You find to say, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it makes two breads impure; in the rabbis’ opinion it only makes one bread impure207The biblically impure table makes the bread it touches biblically impure. For the rabbis the higher degrees of impurity are rabbinic (or rather, conventional), to be disregarded in the Sanctuary. For R. Meïr one accepts at least one degree of conventional impurity (but not all three additional ones.). Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai said before Rebbi Yose, even according to Rebbi Meïr it makes only one bread impure. Explain it if it became impure by fluids of questionable status208If the impurity of the table from the start was not clearly biblical, R. Meïr accepts the rabbis’ point of view.. “Once they immersed the candelabrum. The Sadducees said, look the Pharisees immerse the ball of the sun.205,Tosephta 3:35.209They object to conventional extensions of the notions of impurity.” There we have stated210Mishnah Tamid 3:4.: “They entered the storage room of the vessels and brought out 93 silver and gold vessels.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the 93 Names written in the Chapters of Haggai, Zacharia, and Malachi211“Name” usually is reserved for the Tetragrammaton. Here certainly “Zacharia” should be deleted since his text contains 132 times the Tetragrammaton. The count is correct if one considers only Haggai and Malachi and also allows Elohim as a Name.. Rebbi Ḥuna said, I computed them and they are only 83, corresponding to the 83 signatures written in Ezra212Those mentioned in Nehemiah 10. where each of them declared the Unity of the Name of the Holy One, praise to Him, and signed. Some want to say, corresponding to the day when the daily sacrifices were the most, corresponding to thirteen bulls, fourteen sheep, two rams, and one goat213All 93 vessels are only needed on the first day of Tabernacles.. Rebbi Shiloh from Kefar-Tamarta in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer: And you shall cover it with pure gold214Ex. 30:3., etc. The Torah called it real estate215Since the Torah mentions its roof and its walls, it is described as a house.. So far the golden altar. From where the altar of the elevation sacrifices? It is a logical argument. Since the golden altar which is one cubit square is called real estate, the altar of elevation sacrifices which is five cubits square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square216Ex.30:3 (the golden altar), 27:1 (the brass altar).. Since here it is real estate, also there it is real estate. Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis217These rabbis are not mentioned in the Mishnah. The argument is that the Sages mentioned in the Mishnah could use R. Eliezer’s argument in the inverse direction to establish their rule., the altar is of wood, three cubits its height218Ez. 41:22. The altar there is called “table”, a movable implement., etc. The Torah called it movable219In the Torah both altars are movable, to be carried travelling in the desert.. So far the altar of the elevation sacrifices. From where the golden altar? It is a logical argument. Since the the altar of the elevation sacrifices which is five cubit square is called soil, the golden altar which is one cubit square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is movable, also there it is movable. “But the Sages say, because they are covered.” But is it not cover which stands because of it220If the cover could not stand alone it cannot be separated from the implement it covers which is a rectangular box of wood, enclosing a volume and therefore susceptible of impurity.? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Its thickness was that of a Gordian denar221The only honest gold denar minted during the military anarchy (in the 240’s by Gordianus III.) The implication is that the gold cover could stand by itself; the objection cannot be sustained. Rebbi La said, for its purpose it does not stand because of it222The previous argument can be reinforced; the gold is the essential carrier of the altar and the wood is ancillary.. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, you shall make an altar for incense smoke223Ex. 30:1. is not written here but burning incense; the altar was burning the incense224No fire was used on the golden top of the altar (which if used would have melted the top in no time). The golden top transformed the incense into smoke.. But is it not like a table224aLatin tabula. made to be moved and deposited? Does not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: why is the table impure225In all this arguments, “pure” means “not susceptible to impurity” and “impure” “able to become impure”.? Not because one was removing it and showing it to the pilgrims226The table was not fixed; it cannot be considered a fixed part of the building. In addition, the rim around the table makes it a container which is “impure”. But once a permanent Temple was built, the altars are fixed and should be “pure” as fixtures of the building.? But this one remains in its place. It also served as a vessel in the Sanctuary. Then it should be pure, why is it impure225In all this arguments, “pure” means “not susceptible to impurity” and “impure” “able to become impure”.? Rebbi Mana said, as what we have stated there,227Mishnah Kelim24:9. “there are three baskets228A basket for manure may become impure by body fluids, a box for straw only becomes impure by the impurity of the dead, a cover for camels is pure.”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, because one uses it for its bales; so also here one uses it for its bales229Since the Mishnah classifies the baskets by their use, also here the altar has to be classified by the “impure” incense..
About this book
Jerusalem Chagigah
1 connection
Chapter 10 1 connections
No connections match.